Elmore v. Sinclair, No. 12-99003 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of his stepdaughter. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence on direct appeal. Defendant later filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, listing thirteen purported errors by the Washington state courts. The district court denied habeas relief. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Washington Supreme Court did not act unreasonably on rejecting Defendant’s claim that his shackling on the first day of jury selection for the sentencing trial deprived him of the constitutional right to due process; (2) the Washington Supreme Court reasonably rejected Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims; (3) the Washington Supreme Court was not unreasonable in rejecting Defendant’s claims that he was deprived of his right to trial by an impartial jury because a juror lied during voir dire; and (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s challenges to his conviction and death sentence.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Clark Elmore’s habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and death sentence for the rape and murder of his stepdaughter. The panel held that the Washington Supreme Court did not act unreasonably in rejecting Elmore’s claim that his shackling on the first day of voir dire for the sentencing trial deprived him of due process. The panel held that assuming, arguendo, that Elmore can show a violation of due process, he cannot show prejudice because of the limited duration of his shackling and the violent nature of his crime. The panel held that the Washington Supreme Court likewise reasonably rejected, for failure to show prejudice, Elmore’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel’s failure to object to the shackling. The panel held that it was not unreasonable for the Washington Supreme Court to reject Elmore’s claim that counsel was ineffective for proceeding with a remorse- oriented strategy to the exclusion of mental-health and brain- damage defenses. The panel held that it was not unreasonable for the Washington Supreme Court to reject Elmore’s claim that ELMORE V. SINCLAIR 3 counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the redaction of his taped confession, which removed material in which Elmore had expressed regret about his relationship with the victim. The panel held that assuming, arguendo, that counsel performed deficiently by advising Elmore to plead guilty, he cannot show that this advice prejudiced him. The panel wrote that given the evidence against him, including a damning tape-recording confession, it is highly likely that a jury would have still convicted him of the same crime, even if he had not pleaded guilty. The panel held that the Washington Supreme Court was not unreasonable in rejecting Elmore’s claims that he was deprived of his right to trial by an impartial jury because a juror lied during voir dire when he stated that he had not been the victim of sexual abuse. The panel wrote that the juror likely could not have been removed for cause, and that the juror’s statements suggest that he believed his responses on the questionnaire to be accurate. Concurring in part and concurring in the result, Judge Hurwitz wrote that he doubts that Elmore received competent representation. But applying AEDPA’s “doubly-deferential” standard, he concurred in the panel opinion insofar as it concludes that the Washington Supreme Court did not unreasonably determine that Elmore failed to establish constitutional prejudice from either the guilty plea or the shackling. He also wrote that although defense counsel plainly fell below the applicable standard of care in not investigating Elmore’s brain damage, he could not conclude that the state court unreasonably determined that there is no 4 ELMORE V. SINCLAIR reasonable probability that a proper investigation would have changed the outcome.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.