John Harvey Adamson v. James G. Ricketts, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections

John Harvey Adamson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in district court *1014 after exhausting all of his state remedies. He contends that his death sentence after a conviction of first degree murder violated various provisions of the federal Constitution. The district court denied his petition, and a three-judge panel of this court affirmed the denial. Adamson v. Ricketts, 758 F.2d 441 (9th Cir.1985). That decision was vacated when the majority of the judges of the circuit voted to have the appeal determined by an en banc panel. This panel then reversed the district court on double jeopardy grounds and directed the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Adamson v. Ricketts, 789 F.2d 722 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc). We specifically declined at that time to decide the other issues presented by the petition. Id. at 725 . The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed on the double jeopardy issue. Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 , 107 S.Ct. 2680 , 97 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987). We are now required to address the other issues which were reserved for determination. We affirm the district court in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

I.

Adamson was arrested and charged…

concurring:

I do not believe that the trial judge’s prior sentencing of Adamson to a term of 48-49 years for second degree murder pursuant to a plea bargain is a valid basis for holding that imposition of the death sentence, subsequent to the breach of the agreement and after conviction for first degree murder, was arbitrary and capricious.

with whom ALARCON, BEEZER, and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, join, concurring and dissenting:

The majority opinion identifies and decides six issues in this appeal: whether Adamson’s death sentence was imposed, (1) as a result of judicial vindictiveness or prosecutorial vindictiveness, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; (2) in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3) in violation of right to trial by jury because the aggravating circumstances factor in the Arizona death penalty statute functions as an element of a crime; (4) pursuant to the Arizona death sentence statutory aggravating circumstances factor, heinous, cruel or depraved, which fails to adequately channel the judge’s discretion, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (5) pursuant to the Arizona death sentence statute which precludes meaningful consideration of all mitigating evidence, and imposes a presumption of death, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (6) after the admission at trial of certain hearsay evidence, in violation of the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause.

I agree with the majority’s holding as it relates to judicial…

865 F.2d 1011 57 USLW 2418 John Harvey ADAMSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James G. RICKETTS, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 84-2069. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued En Banc and Submitted Oct. 20, 1987. Decided Dec. 22, 1988. Timothy K. Ford, Seattle, Wash., and Timothy J. Foley, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner-appellant. Jack Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Law, Phoenix, Ariz., for respondents-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before HUG, SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, ALARCON, FERGUSON, NELSON, BOOCHEVER, NORRIS, BEEZER, BRUNETTI and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. FERGUSON, Circuit Judge: 1 John Harvey Adamson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in district court after exhausting all of his state remedies. He contends that his death sentence after a conviction of first degree murder violated various provisions of the federal Constitution. The district court denied his petition, and a three-judge panel of this court affirmed the denial. Adamson v. Ricketts, 758 F.2d 441 (9th Cir.1985). That decision was vacated when the majority of the judges of the circuit…