Capital Habeas Matters
In Marshall v. Sec'y., Dept. of Corrs., No. 09-15419, a capital habeas matter, the court of appeals affirmed the denial of petitioner's habeas petition, holding that nothing in the record suggested that the state courts' application of the jury-override procedure was arbitrary or discriminatory or that such application produced an arbitrary or discriminatory death sentence.
In Vining v. Sec'y., Dept. of Corrs., No. 07-15681, a capital habeas matter, the court of appeals affirmed the denial of petitioner's petition, on the grounds that 1) no extra-record materials that the trial judge viewed were presented to the jury during the guilt or penalty phases; 2) the trial judge's experience with hypnosis, conversations with a psychologist, or familiarity with a book on the subject did not influence the jury or prejudice the petitioner because, according to Florida's law, the witnesses' testimony would have been admissible in any event; and 3) petitioner failed to demonstrate either deficient performance or prejudice in his ineffective assistance claims.