Tenth Circuit Summaries

• Publication year: 2003
• Pages: 179
• Citation: Vol. 32 No. 10 Pg. 179

32 Colo.Law. 179 Colorado Lawyer 2003.

2003, October, Pg. 179. Tenth Circuit Summaries

---

179

Vol. 32, No. 10, Pg. 179

The Colorado Lawyer
October 2003
Vol. 32, No. 10 [Page 179]

From the Courts
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Tenth Circuit Summaries

Summaries of selected opinions appear on a space-available basis. The summaries are prepared for the Colorado Bar Association by Jenine Jensen and Catherine Campbell, licensed Colorado attorneys. The summaries of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit are provided as a service by the Colorado Bar Association and are not the official language of the Court. The Colorado Bar Association cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the summaries

Full copies of the Tenth Circuit decisions are available on the CBA website at http: //www.cobar.org/hotlinks.cfm (United States Courts link to the Tenth Circuit). Call The Colorado Lawyer Editorial Offices with questions: (303) 860-1118

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel - Death Penalty - Use of Mental Health Evidence During Guilt and Penalty Phases of Capital Case - Strategic Decision

Bryan v. Mullin, No. 00-6090, 7/21/03, W.D.Okla., Judge Murphy

Petitioner-appellant Bryan originally appealed the federal district court's denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first-degree malice murder, and sentenced to death. The state court denied his appeals, and the federal district court denied habeas relief. On appeal, a panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, held that trial counsel had not rendered ineffective assistance during the guilt or penalty phase of Bryan's trial by failing to present mental health evidence. The case was reheard en banc. In this six-to-four decision, the Court again holds that Bryan failed to establish that counsel's acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.

Bryan suffered from a history of organic brain disease. He murdered a relative because he believed that this relative owed him large amounts of money. Mental health professionals who evaluated Bryan concluded that he was competent, but "crazy." Despite a long history of mental health problems, his counsel decided not to present mental health evidence in mitigation at the penalty phase. The Court holds that this decision not to employ medical evidence during the guilt or the penalty phases was not objectively unreasonable. Rather, the decision was a strategic one. For that reason, counsel's acts or omissions did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The denial of habeas relief is affirmed.

Fourth Amendment - Exigent Circumstances - Privacy Interest in Person's Own Home

U.S. v. Flowers, No. 02-5149, 7/22/03, N.D.Okla., Judge Holloway.

Defendant appeals the district court's denial of his suppression motion. Police heard that a particular residence was a "juice joint" where liquor was being sold illegally. They went to the house and purchased a bottle of wine. The person inside the house opened a panel near the front door and his hand emerged from a hole in the wall; that is how the bottle of wine was passed to the officers...