DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States No. 16- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States WILLIAM CHARLES MORVA, Petitioner, v. DAVID ZOOK, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI JONATHAN P. SHELDON SETH P. WAXMAN SHELDON, FLOOD & Counsel of Record HAYWOOD, PLC CATHERINE M.A. CARROLL 10621 Jones Street WILMER CUTLER PICKERING Fairfax, VA 20030 HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW DAWN M. DAVISON Washington, DC 20006 VIRGINIA CAPITAL (202) 663-6000 REPRESENTATION [email protected] RESOURCE CENTER 2421 Ivy Road, Suite 301 JANINE M. LOPEZ Charlottesville, VA 22903 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 CAPITAL CASE QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a state rule that excludes as irrelevant ev- idence that a capital defendant is unlikely to pose a risk of future violence in prison is contrary to or an unrea- sonable application of this Court’s precedent under the Eighth Amendment and Due Process Clause. (i) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ............................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................... v OPINIONS BELOW .......................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ................................................................. 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...................................... 2 STATEMENT ..................................................................... 2 A. Background And Capital Trial ............................ 4 B. Direct Appeal ....................................................... 11 C. Federal Habeas Petition .................................... 12 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ................. 14 I. THE FOURTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION CON- TRAVENES THIS COURT’S PRECEDENT AND LEAVES UNCHECKED VIRGINIA’S OUTLIER PROHIBITION ON EVIDENCE ASSESSING A CAPITAL DEFENDANT’S RISK OF FUTURE VIOLENCE IN PRISON ................................................ 14 A. Clearly Established Law Protects Cap- ital Defendants’ Rights In Sentencing ............. 14 1. Right to rebut allegations of future dangerousness .............................................. 14 2. Right to present all mitigating evi- dence .............................................................. 17 B. All Other Death-Penalty Jurisdictions Follow This Court’s Clearly Estab- lished Law ............................................................ 19 (iii) iv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page C. Exclusion Of Mr. Morva’s Prison- Violence Risk Assessment Was Con- trary To And An Unreasonable Appli- cation Of Clearly Established Federal Law ........................................................................ 23 1. Right to rebut allegations of future dangerousness .............................................. 23 2. Right to present all mitigating evi- dence .............................................................. 27 II. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS IMPORTANT ........... 29 III. THIS CASE IS A GOOD VEHICLE ............................... 32 CONCLUSION ................................................................. 34 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, 550 U.S. 233 (2007) ............................................................................ 18 Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).............................. 13 Andrews v. Commonwealth, 699 S.E.2d 237 (Va. 2010) ..................................................................... 29 Archuleta v. Galetka, 267 P.3d 232 (Utah 2011) ............................................................................. 21 Ayers v. Belmontes, 549 U.S. 7 (2006) ............................ 18 Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983).................... 15, 31 Bell v. Commonwealth, 563 S.E.2d 695 (Va. 2002) ............................................................... 29, 30 Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) ..................................... 23 Burns v. Commonwealth, 541 S.E.2d 872 (Va. 2001) ............................................................... 11, 29 Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 531 S.E.2d 642 (Va. 1999) ..................................................................... 30 Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) .............................................................. 21, 22 Cole v. State, 2014 WL 2807710 (Tex. Crim. App. June 18, 2014) .................................................... 22 Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) ......................... 31 Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) .............. 17-18 Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 (1988) .............. 15, 25 Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) ........ 5, 16, 25, 31 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Giarratano v. Commonwealth, 266 S.E.2d 94 (Va. 1980) ................................................................ 16 Hanson v. State, 72 P.3d 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003) .................................................................... 20 Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 394 (1987) ...................... 17 Johnson v. State, 95 P.3d 1099 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) .................................................................... 20 Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350 (1993)............................ 15 Juniper v. Commonwealth, 626 S.E.2d 383 (Va. 2006) ..................................................................... 29 Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976) .................... 14, 15, 31 Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 738 S.E.2d 847 (Va. 2013) ............................................................... 24, 30 Lenz v. Commonwealth, 544 S.E.2d 299 (Va. 2001) ..................................................................... 29 Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) ....................... passim Lynch v. Arizona, 136 S. Ct. 1818 (2016) (per curiam) ................................................................. 17 Marshall v. Rodgers, 133 S. Ct. 1446 (2013) .................. 26 McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990) ............................................................................ 18 Morva v. Virginia, 562 U.S. 849 (2010) .......................... 12 People v. Smith, 347 P.3d 530 (Cal. 2015) ...................... 19 Porter v. Commonwealth, 661 S.E.2d 415 (Va. 2008) ............................................................... 29, 30 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Prieto v. Commonwealth, 721 S.E.2d 484 (Va. 2013) ..................................................................... 29 Renteria v. State, 2011 WL 1734067 (Tex. Crim. App. May 4, 2011) ............................................ 21 Rojem v. State, 207 P.3d 385 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) .................................................................... 20 Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) ................................................................... passim Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) ................................................................... passim Smith v. Commonwealth, 248 S.E.2d 135 (Va. 1978) ..................................................................... 33 State v. Addison, 87 A.3d 1 (N.H. 2013) ......................... 22 State v. Burns, 344 P.3d 303 (Ariz. 2015) ....................... 21 State v. Douglas, 800 P.2d 288 (Or. 1990)....................... 21 State v. Sparks, 83 P.3d 304 (Or. 2004) ........................... 22 Tuggle v. Netherland, 516 U.S. 10 (1995) ................. 32, 33 United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608 (4th Cir. 2010) .............................................................. 21 United States v. Snarr, 704 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 22 United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 21 United States v. Troya, 733 F.3d 1125 (11th Cir. 2013) ............................................................ 20 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) United States v. Whitten, 610 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2010) ............................................................... 22 Walker v. Commonwealth, 515 S.E.2d 565 (Va. 1999) ................................................................ 29-30 Weisheit v. State, 26 N.E.3d 3 (Ind. 2015) ...................... 21 White v. Woodall, 134 S. Ct. 1697 (2014) .................. 26, 27 STATUTORY PROVISIONS 28 U.S.C. § 1254 .............................................................................. 2 § 2254 ................................................................ 12, 18, 23 Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-264.2 .................................................................... 5 § 19.2-264.4 .............................................................. 5, 33 OTHER AUTHORITIES Cunningham. Mark D. & Thomas J. Reidy, Integrating Base Rate Data in Violence Risk Assessments at Capital Sentencing, 16 Behav. Sci. & L. 71 (1998) .................................... 29 Cunningham, Mark D., et al., Capital Jury Decision-Making: The Limitations of Predictions of Future Violence, 15 Psych. Pub. Pol. & L. 223 (2009) ........................................... 31 Death Penalty Information Center, Facts About the Death Penalty (updated Oct. 26, 2016), available at http://deathpenaltyinfo. org/documents/FactSheet.pdf .................................. 30 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States No. 16- WILLIAM CHARLES MORVA, Petitioner, v. DAVID ZOOK, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI William Charles Morva
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia Roanoke Division
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION WILLIAM CHARLES MORVA, ) Civil Action No. 7:13-cv-00283 Petitioner, ) ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) KEITH W. DAVIS, ) By: Michael F. Urbanski Respondent. ) United States District Judge William Charles Morva (“Morva”), a Virginia inmate proceeding with counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Dkt. No. 111, challenging the sentences of death imposed by the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Virginia (“circuit court”) on August 25, 2008. Respondent, who is the Warden of the Sussex I State Prison (“Warden”), moved to dismiss the petition, Dkt. Nos. 67, 120, Morva responded, and the court held a hearing on October 24, 2014. After exhaustively reviewing the record and considering the parties’ arguments, the court finds that Morva’s counsel were not ineffective and that his capital murder trial did not otherwise violate the laws or Constitution of the United States. As such, the Warden’s motions to dismiss must be GRANTED. I. Factual and Procedural History Following an eight day trial held in March 2008, a jury convicted Morva of assault and battery on Montgomery County Sheriff’s Deputy Russell Quesenberry, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-57; escape with force by a prisoner, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-478; one count of capital murder for killing hospital security guard Derrick McFarland while a prisoner, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-31(3); one count of capital murder for killing Montgomery County Sheriff’s Deputy Corporal Eric Sutphin, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-31(6); one count of capital murder for committing premeditated murders of more than one person within a three-year period, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-31(8); and two counts of using a firearm in the commission of murder, in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-31.
    [Show full text]
  • Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech Addendum to the Report of the Review Panel
    MassMass ShootingsShootings atat VirginiaVirginia TechTech AddendumAddendum toto thethe ReportReport ofof thethe ReviewReview PanelPanel PresentedPresented to:to: GovernorGovernor TimothyTimothy M.M. KaineKaine CommonwealthCommonwealth ofof VirginiaVirginia November 2009 Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech Addendum to the Report of the Review Panel Presented to: Governor Timothy M. Kaine Commonwealth of Virginia Presented by: TriData Division, System Planning Corporation 3601 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22201 November 2009 (revised December 2009) INTRODUCTION On April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech experienced one of the most horrific events in American uni- versity history—a double homicide followed by a mass shooting that left 32 students and facul- ty killed, with many others injured, and many more scarred psychologically. Families of the slain and injured as well as the university community have suffered terribly. Immediately after the incident Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine created a blue ribbon Re- view Panel, referred to as the Virginia Tech Review Panel, which consisted of nine members selected for their expertise in the areas that were to be investigated. The Review Panel’s mis- sion was to assess the events leading to the shooting and how the incident was handled by the university and public safety agencies. Mental health services and privacy laws were examined as well. The Review Panel was to make recommendations that would help college campuses prevent or mitigate such incidents in the future. The Report of the Review Panel was presented to the Governor in late August 2007. It is referred to as the “Report” in this Addendum. SCOPE OF THIS REPORT: ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS In the two years since the Review Panel’s report was published, additional information has been placed in the public record, including Seung Hui Cho’s case file from the Cook Counseling Center and a recent report from the Commonwealth’s Inspector General concerning the Cook Counseling Center’s handling of Cho’s records.
    [Show full text]
  • Journalism in the Age of Social Media: the Case of the “In Memorial: Virginia Tech” Facebook Group
    Journalism in the Age of Social Media: The Case of the “In Memorial: Virginia Tech” Facebook Group A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Peter Joseph Gloviczki IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dr. Laura J. Gurak, Adviser, Dr. Shayla Thiel-Stern, Co-adviser May 2012 © Peter Joseph Gloviczki 2012 i Acknowledgements { I am so grateful to the many people who have supported my life and work. First, I thank Laura Gurak and Shayla Thiel-Stern, for advising my dissertation. Laura and Shayla, I am lucky to have met you both; you have prepared me for a life of scholarship. All my thanks to Kathy Hansen and Tom Misa as well, whose service on my committee is much appreciated. I also wish to thank my parents, Marta Matray and Peter Gloviczki. Their support cannot be overstated. My parents taught me to dream; I hope they know that I share the joy of this accomplishment with them. Julia, thank you for being a wonderful example, and an even better sister. Though we were born on the same day one year apart, and I am the older one, you most certainly are the wiser one. Thanks as always for your love for me. Monika, thank you for your enduring interest in my research, and for your steadfast love for my father. Michael, thank you for never taking life too seriously. Arthur and Tim, thank you for your kindness; you are the best step-cousins. Jennifer, thank you for your love.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation and Assessment of the Law Enforcement Tactical Response to the Virginia Tech University Shootings of Monday, 16 April 2007
    AFTER ACTION REVIEW AN EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TACTICAL RESPONSE TO THE VIRGINIA TECH UNIVERSITY SHOOTINGS OF MONDAY, 16 APRIL 2007 BY ARCHANGEL GROUP, LTD. www.antiterrorconsultants.org 5 SEPTEMBER 2008 1 Copyright 2008 by John P. Giduck and Walter D. Chi* *The copyright of this report excludes the expert tactical opinion of CSM Mel Wick in Section VIII, and the legal opinion of Mark Baganz, Esq., in Section IX. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. Preliminary Aspects of Investigation and Report 5 II. Introduction 12 III. General Background 13 IV. The Life of Seung-Hui Cho 18 V. Cho’s Attack on WAJ and Norris Halls 34 VI. Substantive Aspects of the Law Enforcement and Medical Response to Shootings 59 VII. Hindsight 74 VIII. Expert Tactical Opinion of Law Enforcement Response to Shootings 80 IX. Federal Legal Standards for Law Enforcement in the U.S. in Similar Situations 84 X. Efficacy of Law Enforcement Decision-Making 105 XI. Conclusion 121* * Addenda to Report and Table of Contents continued on next page. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED ADDENDUM A 130 Figure 1 - Diagram of Burruss, Norris and Holden Halls, with new building under construction to northeast illustrated. 131 Figure 2 – Map of campus. 132 Figure 3 – Diagram of First Floor, Norris Hall with entry points of LE 133 Figure 4 - Diagram of Second Floor Norris Hall, Depicting Cho’s Initial Movements Once Inside (attacking rooms 206, 207 and first assault on 211) 134 Figure 5 – Partial Map of Campus Depicting Routes Taken from WAJ to Norris Hall by Responding LE 135 Figure 6 – Diagram of Attempted Breach Points for Each of the Three Law Enforcement Entry Teams 136 Figure 7 – Diagram of Norris Hall, Second Floor, Depicting Cho’s movements from his first attack on Rm.
    [Show full text]