Easley v. Clarke

Type

Opinion of the Court

Filed

Feb. 21, 2002

Case

Easley v. Clarke

Case status

Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** Elbert Lee Easley appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus attacking his state court conviction for murder with special circumstances. He asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at his trial, because his counsel failed to investigate and present a potentially meritorious defense of diminished capacity and/or insanity. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 *366 U.S. 668, 686 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In preparing Easley’s defense, his attorney, John Grisez, consulted two different mental health professionals. Both professionals advised Grisez that there was no basis for an insanity or diminished capacity defense. Under the applicable law, Grisez’s reliance on the experts’ opinions was justified. See Hendricks v. Calderon, 70 F.3d 1032, 1037-38 (9th Cir.1995); see also Wallace v. Stewart, 184 F.3d 1112, 1116-18 (9th Cir.1999). Although Grisez did not provide the experts with background information about Easley and his case, we have held that an attorney’s failure to volunteer information to an expert who does not ask for it does not show ineffective assistance at the guilt phase of a trial. See Wallac…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.