Clark Elmore v. Stephen Sinclair

Clark Elmore was convicted and sentenced'to death for the rape and murder of his stepdaughter, Kristy Ohnstad, in 1995. In this appeal of a judgment of the federal district court, Elmore challenges his death sentence on various constitutional and procedural grounds. Specifically, Elmore argues that he was deprived of due process, the effective assistance of counsel, and the right to an impartial jury during the sentencing phase of his capital trial.

Elmore fully litigated these claims through the Washington state court system. The Washington Supreme Court *1164 first considered and dismissed several of these issues on direct appeal. Elmore subsequently filed a collateral petition, which the Washington Supreme Court remanded to the trial court for a hearing on Elmore’s defense counsel’s failure to present a mental health defense. After this evidentiary hearing, the Washington Supreme Court dismissed Elmore’s personal restraint petition and held that counsel was not ineffective for not having presented a mental health defense.

Elmore subsequently filed this federal habeas petition in federal court. We hold that the conclusion of the Washington Supreme Court that Elmore…

concurring in part and concurring in the result:

Clark Elmore committed a truly monstrous crime. A state that has chosen to impose thé death penalty can surely reserve it for such an offense.

But, before the state can impose that sentence, Elmore is entitled under the Sixth Amendment to effective assistance of counsel. I doubt that he received competent representation. His lawyer, who had never before handled a capital case, advised Elmore to plead guilty without receiving any agreement as to sentence in return. 1 The lawyer allowed Elmore to appear in shackles at his first appearance before the sentencing jury. The one-hour mitigation presentation consisted entirely of unconvincing attempts to prove through court personnel that Elmore was remorseful. And, counsel never investigated whether this senseless crime was at least in part the product of Elmore’s organic brain damage.

. But under AEDPA, my serious doubt as to whether the Sixth Amendment was honored is not enough. Rather, we are constrained to view counsel’s performance and the state court’s denial of relief through a “doubly deferential” lens. Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 123 , 129 S.Ct. 1411 , 173 L.Ed.2d 251…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLARK ELMORE, No. 12-99003 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:08-cv-0053-RBL

STEPHEN SINCLAIR,

Respondent-Appellee. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 20, 2014—Portland, Oregon

Filed April 1, 2015

Before: Richard R. Clifton, Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.; Concurrence by Judge Hurwitz SUMMARY*

Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Clark Elmore’s habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and death sentence for the rape and murder of his stepdaughter.

The panel held that the Washington Supreme Court did not act unreasonably in rejecting Elmore’s claim that his shackling on the first day of voir dire for the sentencing trial deprived him of due process. The panel held that assuming, arguendo, that Elmore can show a violation of due process, he cannot show prejudice…