Clark v. Chappell
- William Orrick
- 3:97-cv-20618
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Clark v. Broomfield, Judge Orrick granted Clark’s death-sentence challenge in part, ordering a new penalty proceeding or resentencing.
Richard Dean Clark received relief from his death sentence, but not from his conviction. The State of California must begin a new penalty-phase proceeding or vacate the death sentence and resentence him within 120 days.
What happened
In Clark v. Broomfield, Richard Dean Clark challenged the death sentence imposed after his trial. The court considered allegations that juror Fredrick Barnes consulted a religious figure and then voted for a death sentence.
The court found that the juror misconduct was presumed harmful to the penalty-phase verdict. The respondent did not show that the error was harmless, and the court concluded that Clark’s rights to due process and an impartial jury were violated when he was sentenced to death.
Judge William H. Orrick granted the petition in part, but only as to the sentence-related allegations in Claim XVII.4(p). He ordered a new penalty-phase trial, or required California to vacate the death sentence and resentence Clark, within 120 days; the court denied relief concerning the conviction and denied a certificate of appealability for that issue.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Chappell · No. 3:97-cv-20618
- William Orrick
- July 14, 2022
Background
This judgment incorporates the court’s May 9, 2022, Order on Remand. The case concerns Claim XVII.4(p) of Richard Dean Clark’s Fifth Amended Petition. As described in the judgment, Clark alleged that juror Fredrick Barnes consulted a religious figure about whether voting for the death penalty was proper and then decided to vote for death. Clark argued that the interaction affected the penalty-phase verdict and also argued on remand that it affected the guilt-phase verdict.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the respondent conceded the juror misconduct was presumptively prejudicial to the jury’s penalty-phase verdict. The court also found that the respondent failed to prove that the presumed prejudice was harmless, as required by the cited precedent. On that record, the court concluded that Clark’s rights to due process and an impartial jury were violated when he was sentenced to death.
Both parties initially requested an evidentiary hearing, but after further investigation both stated that they had no additional evidence to add. The court therefore resolved the inquiry on the existing record. It had considered and rejected Clark’s argument that the juror’s conduct also tainted the guilt-phase verdict.
Disposition
The court granted Clark’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in part, limited to the sentence-related allegations of Claim XVII.4(p). It entered judgment for Clark and against the respondent. The relief does not extend to any alleged constitutional defect in Clark’s judgment of conviction, for which the court stated that no relief was warranted. The court also denied a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) as to that conviction-related issue.
Because the court granted sentencing relief, it ordered that Clark receive a new penalty-phase trial. Within 120 days after entry of judgment, the State of California must either begin proceedings to retry the penalty phase or vacate the death sentence and resentence Clark under California law and the United States Constitution. The judgment was ordered by United States District Judge William H. Orrick on July 14, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.