Jones v. Davis, No. 18-99003 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
In 1995, Jones was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his girlfriend’s mother. After the California Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence and denied his state habeas petition, Jones filed a federal habeas petition, raising multiple challenges to both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. The district court granted relief on Jones’s claim that the state trial court violated his right to present a complete defense; Jones should have been permitted to testify during the guilt phase about events from his childhood and his mental health history, and the trial court erred by conditioning such testimony on the presentation of a psychiatric expert who would explain the testimony’s relevance to Jones’s mental state during the murder.
The Ninth Circuit reversed. The condition the trial court imposed on Jones’s testimony was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate to the valid purposes served by its ruling. The court remanded for the district court to consider Jones’s remaining claims.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. In a case in which Ernest Jones was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his girlfriend’s mother, the panel reversed the district court’s order granting relief on one claim in Jones’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, and remanded for the district court to consider Jones’s remaining claims. The district court granted relief on Jones’s claim that the state trial court violated his right to present a complete defense. Specifically, the district court held that Jones should have been permitted to testify during the guilt phase about events from his childhood and his mental health history, and that the trial court had erred by conditioning such testimony on the presentation of a psychiatric expert who would explain the testimony’s relevance to Jones’s mental state during the murder. Reviewing de novo, the panel held that the condition the trial court imposed on Jones’s testimony was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate to the valid purposes served by its ruling.
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.