Background
David Scott Detrich, an Arizona death row prisoner, appealed the district court’s denial of his federal habeas corpus petition under Section twenty-two hundred and fifty-four of Title twenty-eight of the United States Code. Detrich had been convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault in connection with the 1989 death of Elizabeth Souter. He argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial and that the Arizona Supreme Court applied an unconstitutional causal nexus test to mitigation evidence at sentencing.
The court’s reasoning
The en banc court affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief. The court held that Detrich procedurally defaulted most of his guilt-phase ineffective assistance of counsel claims because he failed to fairly present them to the Arizona Supreme Court. The court further held that Detrich did not establish cause and prejudice to excuse those defaults under Martinez v. Ryan. Regarding the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to retain a forensic expert to challenge a prosecution witness’s testimony about the victim’s gurgling sounds, the court found that the Arizona Supreme Court reasonably concluded Detrich was not prejudiced because overwhelming evidence supported the finding that he murdered the victim. The court also rejected Detrich’s contention that the state court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington regarding sentencing phase deficiencies and rejected his assertion that the state court’s decision was based on an unreasonable determination of facts. Finally, the court declined to grant a certificate of appealability on Detrich’s claim regarding the causal nexus test because he did not make a substantial showing that the state court applied such a test in his case.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the requirement that habeas petitioners must fairly present their claims to state supreme courts to avoid procedural default and clarifies the high bar for establishing cause and prejudice under Martinez v. Ryan in capital cases.