Calderon v. Thompson
523 U.S. 538 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a federal court of appeals sua sponte recalls its mandate to revisit the merits of an earlier decision denying habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner, the court abuses its discretion unless it acts to avoid a fundamental miscarriage of justice, which requires a strong showing of actual innocence.
Facts:
- In the summer of 1981, Thomas M. Thompson was living with David Leitch in an apartment previously shared by Leitch and the victim, Ginger Fleischli.
- On the night of September 11, 1981, Fleischli told a friend she was afraid Thompson might kill her. Later that night, Thompson told a companion, Afshin Kashani, that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with Fleischli.
- Kashani left Thompson and Fleischli alone at Thompson's apartment around 2 a.m.
- On September 14, 1981, police discovered Fleischli's body buried in a field. She had been stabbed five times in the head.
- The body was wrapped in a blanket and sleeping bag from Thompson's apartment. Her shirt and bra had been cut down the middle, restraining her arms and exposing her breasts.
- A vaginal swab revealed semen consistent with Thompson's blood type, and her wrist had a crushing injury consistent with handcuffs. A pair of handcuffs was found in Thompson's possession upon his arrest.
- After the body was found, Thompson fled to Mexico. When questioned by police, he lied about Fleischli's whereabouts on the night of the murder and initially denied having sex with her before changing his story to claim it was consensual.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Thompson was convicted of first-degree murder and forcible rape and sentenced to death in the Orange County Superior Court, a California trial court.
- The California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Thompson filed three state habeas petitions, all of which were denied by the California Supreme Court.
- Thompson filed a federal habeas petition in the U.S. District Court, which granted relief on the rape conviction and rape special circumstance, thereby vacating the death sentence.
- The State of California appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, reinstating the conviction and death sentence.
- The Ninth Circuit denied Thompson's petition for rehearing en banc and subsequently issued its mandate denying all habeas relief.
- Two days before Thompson's scheduled execution, the Ninth Circuit, acting en banc and sua sponte, recalled its mandate and granted habeas relief, again vacating the death sentence.
- The State of California (via Warden Calderon) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court of appeals abuse its discretion when it sua sponte recalls its mandate denying habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner for reasons other than to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. A federal court of appeals abuses its discretion when it sua sponte recalls its mandate denying habeas relief unless it acts to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The inherent power of a court to recall its mandate is reserved for extraordinary circumstances, and the reasons cited by the Ninth Circuit—a mishandled law clerk transition and a judge's failure to notice a memo—are 'the slightest of bases' and do not qualify. In the context of federal habeas corpus review, the state's interests in the finality of its criminal judgments are paramount. While the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) does not directly control this sua sponte action, its principles favoring finality must inform the court's discretion. The proper standard for such a recall is the 'miscarriage of justice' exception, which is concerned with 'actual as compared to legal innocence.' Applying this standard, Thompson's claims fail because the evidence of his guilt of rape and murder was substantial, and the evidence presented in his habeas petition did not establish that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
No. The Court of Appeals acted within its discretion, and the majority imposes a new and erroneously rigid standard. The correct standard of review is for abuse of discretion, which requires a high degree of deference to the lower court. The Ninth Circuit's justification—to correct a malfunction of its own procedural mechanisms to avoid a potentially unconstitutional execution—was a legitimate and reasonable basis for its action. It was reasonable for the en banc court to believe that the procedural errors, which prevented two judges from voting, could have affected the outcome of the en banc poll. The ultimate merit of the underlying legal claim is not the issue when reviewing for an abuse of discretion. AEDPA does not apply to a court's inherent power to recall its own mandate, and the majority is wrong to import its policies to create a new, inflexible 'miscarriage of justice' rule where none previously existed for this procedural action.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the inherent power of federal appellate courts to reconsider their decisions in habeas corpus cases, reinforcing the strong policy of finality in criminal law. By establishing the stringent 'miscarriage of justice' (i.e., actual innocence) standard as the sole basis for a sua sponte recall of a mandate, the Court aligned judicial discretion with the restrictive spirit of the recently enacted AEDPA, even where the statute's text did not directly apply. This ruling makes it exceptionally difficult for prisoners to have their cases revisited after a federal appeals court has issued a final judgment denying relief, effectively limiting such reconsiderations to the rarest of cases where there is compelling new evidence of innocence, rather than mere procedural or legal error.
Unlock the full brief for Calderon v. Thompson