This morning, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the death sentences in State v. Nordstrom. Although Mr. Nordstrom did not present any mitigation at his sentencing hearing, the state was permitted to introduce highly prejudicial “mitigation rebuttal,” including evidence of four additional homicides. The Arizona Supreme Court determined such rebuttal was proper, as it constitutes a circumstance of the crime and is relevant to the question of whether Mr. Nordstrom is entitled to leniency. The opinion is below.
Archive for July, 2012
In Runningeagle v. Ryan, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the writ in a published decision. In a separate unpublished order, however, the Court remanded the case back to the district court for supplemental briefing on the impact of Martinez v. Ryan. The opinion and order are attached.
