Darrell Keith RICH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

Citations: 170 F.3d 1236; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2157; 99 Daily Journal DAR 2823; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5052; 1999 WL 160841Docket: 97-99007

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 25, 1999; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Darrell Keith Rich, convicted in 1980 for multiple sexual assaults and murders, appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition, challenging various aspects of his trial and legal representation. His claims included the district court's refusal for discovery and an evidentiary hearing, as well as alleged errors in the handling of his case: issues of pre-indictment and pre-trial publicity, grand jury composition, jury instructions, ineffective assistance from economically conflicted defense counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and his shackling during trial. Rich also argued his mental incompetence to stand trial. 

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of his petition, concluding that Rich’s claims did not merit relief. The case was characterized by the heinous nature of the crimes, which garnered significant public attention. Following a change of venue to Yolo County, Rich's defense presented a comprehensive case, including testimony from mental health experts aimed at establishing a mental defect. Despite this, the jury found him guilty on multiple counts, including three first-degree murders, and recommended the death penalty. After his convictions were upheld by the California Supreme Court, Rich's habeas petition was filed in 1990 and reached the Ninth Circuit in 1997, where it was noted that many claims had not been exhausted in state court, leading to a lengthy procedural history.

Rich claims he was denied the opportunity to discover and present evidence for his habeas claims. However, the Magistrate Judge implemented a reasonable process requiring Rich to identify unexhausted claims, those presenting federal questions, and claims potentially eligible for habeas relief. Despite having over five months for preparation and a full day for argument, Rich could not substantiate any claims. Habeas corpus is intended to address clear injustices, not to serve as a means for broad exploration of claims. An evidentiary hearing is warranted only if the allegations could lead to relief and the state fact-finder has not reliably established the facts, neither of which Rich demonstrated.

Moreover, habeas petitioners do not have the same discovery rights as civil litigants; discovery is granted at the court's discretion upon showing good cause. Rich's prior cases cited do not contradict this principle, as those cases involved petitioners who presented supportive evidence. 

Regarding pre-trial errors, Rich waived his claim related to pre-indictment publicity by not challenging the jury's impartiality after a venue change. Even assuming his argument could stand against precedent, it would represent a new rule barred under existing legal standards. Rich also raised concerns about the grand jury selection process, but the district court correctly limited his equal protection claim regarding Native Americans and found he did not establish a prima facie case of systematic exclusion. The demographic data indicated that the exclusion of a group constituting 2.7% of the population is insufficient for a systematic exclusion claim, affirming there was no constitutional error in the grand jury's composition.

Rich's claims of trial error are evaluated and found to lack merit. Regarding jury instructions, Rich argues the court misled the jury by not instructing them that a deadlock on penalty would impose a life sentence. This claim is rejected, as such an instruction would contradict California Penal Code section 190.4(b) and established case law, which holds that juries need not be informed of deadlock consequences. 

Rich also asserts his trial counsel had an 'economic conflict' of interest due to pressure from Shasta County funding authorities, which allegedly hindered the hiring of experts and an investigator. The court finds no evidence of an actual conflict adversely affecting counsel's performance, thus negating the need for an evidentiary hearing. The mere assertion of impact does not suffice; Rich failed to demonstrate how any financial pressures significantly impaired his defense. An affidavit from his trial counsel acknowledged perceived financial pressures but did not indicate any resulting harm to Rich's representation.

Lastly, on the issue of shackling during trial, Rich was shackled with ankle chains, but they were concealed from the jury by a curtain. He was not handcuffed and maintained communication with his counsel. The trial judge and defense counsel did not raise concerns about the visibility of the shackles. Established case law indicates that if a defendant's shackling is not visible to the jury, no constitutional error occurs. Therefore, no error is found regarding the shackling practices employed during Rich's trial.

Rich's claim of prosecutorial misconduct during the penalty phase is deemed meritless, as he did not object at the time, and California's contemporaneous objection rule applies. The prosecutor's comments regarding Rich's potential for future violence and a photograph of his tattoo were appropriate, particularly in light of Rich's own statements about violence. Additionally, the review of mental health expert testimony by the Magistrate Judge found no significant doubt regarding Rich's competency to stand trial, confirming he was mentally competent. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, with no constitutional errors identified.