Shelton v. Marshall, No. 13-15707 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of first degree murder of Kevin Thorpe and second degree murder of Laura Craig, appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition. The court held that the prosecution's suppression of a material part of its deal with a key witness violated Brady v. Maryland, with respect to petitioner’s conviction for the first degree murder. The court granted the writ as to that conviction because the witness's testimony was central to the prosecution's case that petitioner premeditated and deliberated regarding Thorpe's murder. Had the jury known of the prosecution's serious doubt as to the witness's mental competence and of its successful efforts to prevent him from obtaining a competency test until after he testified, it would have reached a different result on that count. However, the court concluded in a memorandum disposition filed along with this opinion that, had the witness been impeached by evidence of the secret deal with the prosecution regarding his competency, there is not a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different result with respect to petitioner's convictions for the second-degree murder of Craig, kidnapping, and theft. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to those counts.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s denial of California state prisoner Joseph Shelton’s habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions for the first-degree murder of Kevin Thorpe, the second-degree murder of Laura Craig, kidnapping, and theft. The panel held that the prosecution’s suppression of a material part of its deal with key witness Norman Thomas violated Brady v. Maryland with respect to Shelton’s conviction for the first-degree murder of Thorpe, and ordered the writ granted as to that conviction. The panel explained that Thomas’s testimony was central to the prosecution’s case that Shelton premeditated and deliberated regarding Thorpe’s murder, and held that there is a reasonable probability that had the jury known of the prosecution’s serious doubts as to Thomas’s mental competence and of its successful efforts to prevent him from obtaining a competency test until after he testified, it would have reached a different result on that count. The panel concluded, in a memorandum disposition, that had Thomas been impeached by evidence of the secret deal with the prosecution regarding his competency, there is not a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different result with respect to Shelton’s convictions for the second-degree murder of Craig, kidnapping, and theft. SHELTON V. MARSHALL 3
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 23, 2015.
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.