Robert Alton Harris v. Daniel Vasquez, Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin

913 F.2d 606 59 USLW 2190 Robert Alton HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Daniel VASQUEZ, Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee. No. 90-55402. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 14, 1990. Decided Aug. 29, 1990. As Amended Nov. 19, 1990. Charles M. Sevilla and Michael McCabe, San Diego, Cal., and Michael Laurence, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Cal., San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner-appellant. Jay M. Bloom, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., and Louis R. Hanoian, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., San Diego, Cal., for respondent-appellee. Kent S. Scheidegger, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for amici curiae, States of Idaho, Ariz., Mont., Nev., and Wash. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Before ALARCON, BRUNETTI, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. BRUNETTI, Circuit Judge: 1 On March 6, 1979, Robert Alton Harris ("Harris") was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to death. On March 26, 1990, Harris filed his third federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In this…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

This court is asked to decide a very narrow issue. It is: Is Robert Alton Harris entitled to an evidentiary hearing as to any of his claims? In other words, do we know enough right now, without a district court finding any facts, to say that Harris’ claims, even if true, entitle him to no relief?

I agree that for the reasons stated by the majority Harris’ petition does not require a hearing on the ground that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel or that he has turned up new evidence or that the state put forward false testimony against him or that an undisclosed agent of the government testified against him. I also agree that Harris’ mental state was not an issue requiring psychiatric evidence in the guilt phase of his trial. I respectfully disagree with my colleagues because I believe that Harris has a right to present evidence as to whether he was denied his constitutional right to effective psychiatric assistance in the penalty phase of his trial.

I reach this conclusion in four steps, none of which I find in doubt:

1.A new constitutional right of “bedrock” fairness affecting the accuracy of the determination of…

On March 6, 1979, Robert Alton Harris (“Harris”) was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to death. On March 26, 1990, Harris filed his third federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In this petition, Harris alleged that the state had denied *609 him competent psychiatric assistance at trial, that the prosecution had presented false psychiatric testimony, and that newly discovered evidence showed he had organic brain damage and other mental disorders. Harris also asserted that he had been subjected to an unlawful interrogation, and had been denied effective assistance of counsel. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Harris’s petition. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Facts of Harris’s Crimes 1

Between the months of May and July of 1978, Harris twice asked his brother, Daniel, to help in a planned bank robbery. Harris told his brother that guns would be necessary for the robbery.

On July 2, 1978, Daniel stole two guns. On July 3, 1978, the two brothers purchased ammunition, went to a nearby rural area, and practiced firing the weapons by…