Robert L. Ayers, Jr., Acting Warden v. Fernando Belmontes
Capital Cases, Criminal Law, Habeas Corpus, Jury Instruction
Does Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990), confirm the constitutional sufficiency of California's
"unadorned factor (k)" instruction where a defendant presents
mitigating evidence of his background and character which relates to,
or has a bearing on, his future prospects as a life prisoner?
Does the Ninth Circuit's holding, that California's "unadorned factor
(k)" instruction is constitutionally inadequate to inform jurors they
may consider "forward-looking" mitigation evidence constitute a "new
rule" under Teague v. Lane, 489 , U.S. 288 (1989)?