Stephen Wayne Anderson v. Arthur Calderon, Warden

with join dissenting:

At a time when much of the civilized world is questioning the fairness of our application of the death penalty, and a vigorous national debate is occurring over whether all persons are entitled to a fair trial, it is regrettable that this court refuses to consider en banc the case of an individual sentenced to death by the state of California after being represented by a *484 court-appointed attorney whom we have now twice deemed constitutionally ineffective in capital cases — an attorney who has demonstrated a willingness to lie to the court and to betray the interests of his capital clients. I cannot join my colleagues in their decision to permit the state to proceed with the execution of an individual whose death sentence may well have been imposed, not because of the crime that he committed, but because of the incompetence of an attorney with little integrity and a pattern of ineffective performance in capital cases.

When Stephen Anderson petitioned this court for habeas relief, he alleged that his attorney, Donald S. Ames, provided ineffective representation by, among other things, failing even to meet with him before the trial began, conceding his…

Order; Dissent by Judge Reinhardt

ORDER

Petitioner Anderson has filed with this Court a series of emergency motions asking to reopen this case and to rehear en banc certain claims, all of which relate to our recent opinion in Mayfield v. Wood-ford, 270 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.2001). Anderson asserts that our en banc court’s adverse treatment in Mayfield of the performance of Anderson’s trial attorney, Donald Ames, casts doubt on our November 17, 2000, decision in this case regarding whether Mr. Ames provided ineffective assistance of counsel to petitioner Anderson. We concluded that Mr. Ames’s and his co-counsel’s representation of Mr. Anderson did not violate the Sixth Amendment. We then considered a petition to rehear the matter en banc, and the Court voted not to rehear it.

On June 6, 2001, we granted Anderson’s motion to stay the mandate until final disposition of his petition for a writ of certio-rari to the United States Supreme Court. On November 13, 2001, the Supreme Court issued its order denying Anderson’s petition. See Anderson v. Calderon, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 580 , 151 L.Ed.2d 451 (2001). We received formal notification from the Supreme Court of this denial on November…

276 F.3d 483 (9th Cir. 2001) STEPHEN WAYNE ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ARTHUR CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 98-99024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Filed December 21, 2001 Before: TROTT, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. ORDER Dissent by Judge Reinhardt ORDER 1 Petitioner Anderson has filed with this Court a series of emergency motions asking to reopen this case and to rehear en banc certain claims, all of which relate to our recent opinion in Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001). Anderson asserts that our en banc court's adverse treatment in Mayfield of the performance of Anderson's trial attorney, Donald Ames, casts doubt on our November 17, 2000, decision in this case regarding whether Mr. Ames provided ineffective assistance of counsel to petitioner Anderson. We concluded that Mr. Ames's and his co-counsel's representation of Mr. Anderson did not violate the Sixth Amendment. We then considered a petition to rehear the matter en banc, and the Court voted not to rehear it. 2 On June 6, 2001, we granted Anderson's motion to stay the mandate until final disposition of his petition for a writ of certiorari to the United…