Supreme Court hears Arizona death row case arguments. A ruling could redefine future appeals

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an Arizona death penalty case on Wednesday that could redefine the precedent for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Danny Lee Jones was convicted and sentenced to death in Mohave County for the 1992 murders of Robert Weaver and his daughter, Tisha. Jones sought relief in the Arizona District Court, claiming his defense attorney was so deficient it violated his constitutional rights. The District Court denied Jones’ claim, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, siding with Jones. Arizona appealed the 9th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and was granted a review.

At issue is what’s known as the Strickland standard, which came from the 1984 Supreme Court case Strickland v. Washington. The Strickland decision established that a defendant must show their attorney’s performance was deficient, resulting in an unfair trial, to claim their constitutional rights were violated.

Defense attorney: Initial lawyer had little experience, was deficient

At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Jones’ attorney Jean-Claude Andre argued that Jones’ initial trial attorney, a public defender with no capital case experience, was constitutionally deficient based on the Supreme Court's Strickland standard.

In Jones’ case, Andre alleged the judge and jury did not get to hear all of the mitigating evidence that was available.

“Despite numerous red flags about Jones's mental health and emotional disorders, counsel did not start his mitigation investigation until after Jones's conviction,” Andre said.

He said the sentencing judge did hear about some of Jones’ mitigating factors, but not the more substantial evidence that was later presented in a federal evidentiary hearing.

“The new mitigating evidence showed that Jones was chronically abused throughout his entire formative years in childhood, by not just one but by multiple male family members,” Andre said. “Most critically, the new mitigation evidence actually included diagnoses — evidence about the effects that all the abuse and head injuries had on Jones.”

Andre said four experts diagnosed Jones with brain damage, PTSD, bipolar depressive disorder, and a learning disability, among other things.

“This new evidence would have dramatically changed the sentencing calculus both in the trial court and before the Arizona Supreme Court on its independent review,” Andre said.

Instead of looking at all of the evidence, Andre said the District Court “serially nitpicked” from the mitigation, which he called an error. Andre asked the high court to affirm the 9th Circuit’s ruling overturning the District Court.

'No reasonable probability' sentence would have been different, Arizona prosecutor says

But Jason Lewis, deputy solicitor general arguing on behalf of Arizona, said Jones’ crimes were so serious, and the brutality he inflicted upon his victims was so severe, that new evidence would not have changed the minds of the judge or the jury.

“When you look at those aggravating circumstances, and you understand how Arizona courts treat those aggravating circumstances, this is ... almost a foregone conclusion that there is no reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different,” Lewis said.

Lewis said the 9th Circuit failed to meaningfully consider those aggravating circumstances or their weight.

“Strickland does not allow for a sentence to be undone whenever there is some new mitigation that addresses moral culpability,” he said. “Instead, it requires a reasonable probability that the new mitigation would have changed the sentence in light of the balance between the total mitigation and the aggravating evidence.”

He also contended that Jones had a “pretty good” mitigation case before the trial court, and he argued that it was not constitutionally deficient.

Lewis asked the justices to reverse the 9th Circuit’s judgment.

High court appears split on ideological grounds

Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to agree with Lewis’ belief that the 9th Circuit should have deferred to the District Court ruling. He asked Lewis if the case could be resolved by saying a de novo review — deciding a case without deferring to a previous court's ruling — was improper.

“I think so, your honor,” Lewis replied.

There was disagreement among the parties about the actions taken by the District Court in Jones’ case. Andre criticized the District Court for acting as a fact finder, making its own determination about expert witnesses and evidence, when it should have accepted the facts as presented and made a decision about whether the defendant had been prejudiced against.

Lewis said the District Court not only had the right to make factual determinations, but the 9th Circuit failed by not deferring to them.

Justice Neil Gorsuch indicated his agreement with Lewis’ position, saying the District Court had to determine what the facts were before it could make a determination of whether there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the judge and jury heard those facts.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to side with Andre’s position on where the District Court erred. Taking mitigation evidence off the table, instead of accepting all of it and weighing all of it for its value, could lead to a different outcome, she said.

Justice Elena Kagan indicated she would be in favor of returning the case to a lower court.

"We're losing, I think, a view of what this case is about," Kagan said. "Nobody disputes that the trial counsel was deficient. In no capital case should any lawyer wait till someone has been found guilty to start mitigation because it doesn't give you enough time to do a thorough investigation."

Kagan said there was a "mountain of additional evidence" that was found, but no one was disputing Jones' conviction.

"We're only here to decide who should decide whether to resentence him," she said of Jones.

Dale Baich, adjunct professor at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, said it appeared from the questions during the argument that the case will be remanded to a lower court for further review.

"The Supreme Court will give direction as to the scope of the reexamination that is necessary to comply with the Constitution," Baich said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has considered several Arizona death penalty cases in recent years.

Back-to-back rulings in 2023 could result in as many as 30 of the more than 100 people on Arizona's death row having their death sentences reconsidered.

A decision on Jones' case is expected by the end of June.

Facing capital punishment: Man sentenced to death in murder of 72-year-old Phoenix church janitor

Have a news tip? Reach the reporter at [email protected] or 812-243-5582. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @JimmyJenkins.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: US Supreme Court hears arguments for Arizona death row prisoner's case