JOSEPH HART V. RON BROOMFIELD, No. 20-99011 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
A petitioner, Joseph William Hart, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case emerged from a 1988 trial in which Hart was convicted of the murder of Diana H., and of the rape, sodomy, and forced oral copulation of Amy R. Hart was sentenced to death.
Hart argued that the State suppressed evidence that could have impeached one of the prosecution’s expert witnesses, Dr. Dewitt Hunter, in violation of Brady v. Maryland. He also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge Dr. Hunter’s qualifications and testimony.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Hart's petition. It held that the Supreme Court of California could have reasonably concluded that the impeachment evidence Hart referred to was not material. The court also found that Hart's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge Dr. Hunter's qualifications and testimony. The court determined that Hart's counsel's decisions were entitled to deference and that Hart provided no substantial evidence that another expert would have contradicted Dr. Hunter's findings.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Joseph William Hart’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition in a case in which Hart was sentenced to death after a jury convicted him of the murder of Diana H. (known as Diane) and of the rape, sodomy, and forced oral copulation of Amy R.
Because the Supreme Court of California (CSC) did not offer reasoning when denying Hart’s state habeas petition on the merits, Hart is required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act to show there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief.
Hart claimed that the prosecution suppressed, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), material impeachment evidence that could have been used to challenge the qualifications of Dr. Dewitt Hunter, a pathologist whom Riverside County contracted to perform an autopsy on Diane. The panel held that the district court appropriately rejected this claim because the CSC could have reasonably concluded that this evidence was not material.
Hart claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge Dr. Hunter’s qualifications and testimony. Affirming the district court’s rejection of this claim, the panel wrote that Hart provided no reason to conclude that a challenge to Dr. Hunter’s qualifications would have resulted in the exclusion of his expert testimony or significant impeachment of his credibility; that a detective’s report, even if it contradicted Dr. Hunter’s testimony, did not harm Dr. Hunter’s testimony; that trial counsel’s decision not to investigate and impeach Dr. Hunter with Dr. Hunter’s errors in previous trials did not prejudice Hart; and that Hart pointed to no evidence that trial counsel’s presentation of his own expert would have contradicted Dr.
Hunter’s findings.
The panel addressed uncertified claims in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition.
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.