Wayne Lee Bates v. Ricky Bell, Warden
402 F.3d 635, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 4711, 2005 WL 659069 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Extensive and deliberately inflammatory closing arguments by a prosecutor during a capital sentencing hearing, which are designed to incite juror passion and prejudice, can so infect the proceedings with unfairness as to constitute a violation of the defendant's Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- On July 20, 1986, Wayne Lee Bates escaped from custody in Kentucky.
- Two days later, he broke into a home and stole several items, including a shotgun which he then sawed off.
- On July 23, 1986, near an interstate exit in Manchester, Tennessee, Bates confronted Julie Guida, who was jogging.
- Bates walked Guida into the woods, tied her to a tree with her shoelaces and a headphone cord, and told her he was going to take her car.
- Without warning, Bates shot Guida once in the back of the head, killing her instantly.
- Bates hid her body, returned to her hotel room to shower, and then stole her rental car, money, and traveler's checks.
- He fled east across Tennessee, using the stolen traveler's checks along the way.
- On July 26, 1986, Bates was arrested in Baltimore, Maryland, on an unrelated offense.
Procedural Posture:
- Wayne Lee Bates pled guilty to first-degree murder in the Criminal Court for Coffee County, Tennessee, a state trial court.
- Following a sentencing hearing, a jury sentenced Bates to death.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- After exhausting state post-conviction remedies, Bates filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court.
- The District Court denied habeas relief.
- Bates, as the petitioner-appellant, appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 prosecutor's closing argument during a capital sentencing hearing, which includes calling the defendant a 'rabid dog,' telling jurors they would be 'accomplices' to future murders if they chose a life sentence, asserting personal opinions, and attacking defense counsel for making objections, violate the defendant's right to due process?
Opinions:
Majority - Merritt, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The prosecutor's misconduct was so egregious that it violated the defendant's due process rights, rendering the sentencing hearing fundamentally unfair. The court found the prosecution's conduct was improper in three ways: 1) it incited the passions and prejudices of the jury by calling Bates a 'rabid dog' and repeatedly telling jurors they would become 'accomplices' to future murders if they did not vote for death; 2) prosecutors improperly injected their personal opinions by expressing disbelief in the testimony of the defense's expert witness and Bates's mother; and 3) prosecutors inappropriately criticized defense counsel for objecting, calling them 'paranoid' and suggesting their objections were merely diversionary tactics. Applying the four-factor flagrancy test from Darden v. Wainwright, the court concluded the remarks were highly likely to prejudice the defendant, were extensive and pervasive throughout the closing argument, were plainly deliberate, and that overwhelming evidence of guilt for the underlying crime does not excuse misconduct that prevents a jury from properly considering mitigating evidence in the separate sentencing phase. This misconduct poisoned the atmosphere of the hearing and requires that the death sentence be vacated.
Concurring - Batchelder, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The prosecutor's misconduct amounted to a denial of due process and requires a new sentencing hearing. However, the analysis should be confined to the Due Process Clause. The majority opinion improperly cites a prior Sixth Circuit case, DePew v. Anderson, for the proposition that such misconduct could also violate the Eighth Amendment. Under the AEDPA standard of review, federal courts may only grant habeas relief based on 'clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,' and the Supreme Court has not held that the Eighth Amendment's mitigation requirement applies to the actions of prosecutors. Therefore, the correct and sole basis for vacating the sentence is the clear violation of Bates's due process rights.
Analysis:
This case provides a stark example of how prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments can cross the line from zealous advocacy to a due process violation, especially in a capital case. It reinforces that while prosecutors may 'strike hard blows,' they may not 'strike foul ones.' The court's analysis highlights that the sentencing phase of a capital trial has unique constitutional protections; overwhelming evidence of guilt does not excuse conduct that undermines the jury's ability to fairly weigh aggravating and mitigating factors. This decision serves as a significant check on prosecutorial overreach and clarifies the application of the Darden flagrancy test in the death penalty context.
