Warren Robert Standen v. Harol Whitley

Convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, Warren Robert Standen seeks a writ of habeas corpus. At his trial his original plea of guilty, which he had lawfully withdrawn, was introduced by the prosecution, and the jury was instructed by the court that the plea could be considered as evidence against Standen. We hold that this instruction deprived Standen of due process of law and had a substantial and injurious effect in determining the verdict of the jury. We therefore order that the writ issue.

FACTS

The evidence presented by the prosecution showed the following:

Kaylyn Danner lived in Reno, Nevada in a trailer with her three children, ages 14, 11 and 10. She had been separated from her husband for four months. On the evening of January 31, 1978 her husband came to see her at the trailer. He left about 10:00 p.m.

Kaylyn Danner visited her friend Jeannie Sweet at approximately 11:00 p.m. She was due to begin the night shift at midnight at the Monte Carlo Casino on Sixth Street, Reno, about a seven minute drive from Sweet’s residence. She left Jeannie Sweet for the casino at approximately 11:40 p.m. No witness…

Concurring:

I concur in Judge Noonan’s analysis and in most of his opinion. I write separately only on two matters.

First, my reading of the cold record left me with an abiding belief in Warren Stan-den’s guilt. The facts which led me to this conclusion are set out in Judge Noonan’s opinion, and need not be marshaled here again. However, the jury is the body whose conclusion matters, and its verdict was tainted by a trial error unique in the history of the .common law. Regardless of my view of his guilt, Standen was entitled to a trial at which the jury could fairly weigh all the evidence, a function denied to it by admission of evidence that Standen had previously pleaded guilty.

Second, the State of Nevada is now faced with the practical problem of trying to assemble a new trial fifteen years after the crime was committed. The prosecution, defense counsel and the trial judge make up the first line of defense established by our system for the protection of an accused’s rights. Their failures- in Standen’s ease were basic and repeated. However, when the Nevada Supreme Court had the chance to correct the error in 1985, it applied the wrong test. There was substantial evidence to…

994 F.2d 1417 Warren Robert STANDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harol WHITLEY, et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 91-16422. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 8, 1993. Decided June 4, 1993. John C. Lambrose, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Las Vegas, NV, for petitioner-appellant. Kevin G. Higgins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Carson City, NV, for respondents-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Before: GOODWIN, NOONAN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. NOONAN, Circuit Judge: 1 Convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, Warren Robert Standen seeks a writ of habeas corpus. At his trial his original plea of guilty, which he had lawfully withdrawn, was introduced by the prosecution, and the jury was instructed by the court that the plea could be considered as evidence against Standen. We hold that this instruction deprived Standen of due process of law and had a substantial and injurious effect in determining the verdict of the jury. We therefore order that the writ issue. FACTS 2 The evidence presented by the prosecution showed the following: 3…