Eric Mann v. Charles Ryan

Eric Owen Mann, who was convicted and sentenced to death in Arizona state court for the murders of two men, appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I

A

This case involves another tragic tale of drugs and violence. On the evening of November 23, 1989, Eric Mann and his then-girlfriend, Karen Miller, returned to the house they rented in Tucson after having Thanksgiving dinner with Mann’s mother. Two weeks before, Mann had arranged to sell about a kilogram of cocaine to his friend, Richard Alberts, for about $20,000, and the transaction was to take place at the house that evening. However, according to Miller, Mann never actually planned to provide cocaine to Al-berts. Rather, he planned to “rip off’ Alberts by taking the money and giving Alberts a shoebox filled with paper instead of cocaine. He told Miller that he planned to “whack” Alberts because he knew he would not be able to get away with the theft otherwise.

About fifteen minutes after Mann and Miller returned to their house, Alberts arrived with another man, Ramon Bazurto. Mann was…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Once more unto the breach. Time and again, we have been admonished for disregarding Congress’s clear instruction that federal judges in habeas proceedings must adopt a “highly deferential standard” under which “state-court decisions [are] given the benefit of the doubt.” Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 , 123 S.Ct. 357 , 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). In clear violation of this principle, the majority today seizes upon imprecise language in a single sentence of a state court’s otherwise well-reasoned and comprehensive opinion, and uses it to sweep aside AEDPA’s restrictions on the scope of our review. The majority not only fails to faithfully apply Supreme Court precedent, it also creates a split with two other circuits.

If we are not summarily reversed, Mann’s death sentence will surely be reimposed by the state court. One way or the other, Mann will be executed, if he doesn’t die of old age first. But only after he— and the families of the two people he killed 25 years ago — endure what may be decades of further uncertainty. Where’s the justice in that? I respectfully dissent from Part…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC OWEN MANN, No. 09-99017 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 4:03-CV-00213-

CKJ

CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Respondent-Appellee. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 7, 2012—Pasadena, California

Filed December 29, 2014

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinski, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Chief Judge Thomas; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Kozinski SUMMARY*

Habeas Corpus

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment denying a habeas corpus petition brought by Eric Owen Mann, who was convicted and sentenced to death in Arizona state court for two murders.

The panel held that Mann is not entitled to relief on his guilt phase claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because, under either of two competing versions of the facts, counsel’s decision not to call Mann as a witness was strategic, and therefore fell within the…