Justices to review death penalty case

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to reconsider another death penalty decision from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, this one overturning the death sentence for a man who abducted a young Seattle woman then raped and tortured her for two days before killing her.

It will be the fourth case before the justices this term in which the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit had reversed a murder conviction or a death sentence.

In all four, state prosecutors appealed to the high court, arguing the judges of the appeals court had overstepped their authority and wrongly second-guessed a state court’s decision.

In November, the high court reversed the 9th Circuit and restored a death sentence for a Central Valley man who robbed and fatally clubbed a young woman in 1982. In December, the justices unanimously restored the murder conviction for a man who shot and killed the fiance of his estranged wife in San Jose. The 9th Circuit had overturned the conviction because the parents and a brother of the murder victim were seen wearing a small photo of him in the courtroom.

The third case, heard Tuesday, concerned an Arizona murderer whose death sentence was overturned by the 9th Circuit on the grounds that his lawyer failed to present “mitigating evidence” on his behalf, even though the defendant, Jeffrey Landrigan, told the judge during the sentencing hearing that he did not want mitigating evidence presented on his behalf.

The new case, from Seattle, focuses on a potential juror who was excluded because of his views on the death penalty.

The facts of the case were described as “sickening” by the dissenting judges on the 9th Circuit.

On May 23, 1991, Holly Washa, 21, was leaving her job at a hotel near the Seattle-Tacoma Airport when Cal Brown stopped her to say her tire was flat. He jumped in her car and put a knife to her throat. He forced her to take money from her bank account.

Brown took her to a motel where he kept her in handcuffs and raped her. On the third day, he slit her throat and left her to die in the trunk of her car.

From there, Brown flew to Palm Springs, where he abducted, tortured and stabbed a second woman. Despite a slit throat, she was able to call the hotel desk when Brown left the room. Police arrested Brown when he returned.

Brown gave a detailed confession to both crimes. In Seattle, he was tried, convicted and sentenced to die in 1993 for Washa’s murder. State courts and a federal judge in Seattle upheld the conviction and sentence.

“This was not a case where there was any doubt about who committed the murder,” John J. Samson, an assistant attorney general from Washington, said Friday.

In December 2005, however, Brown’s appeal came before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, which reversed the death sentence on the grounds that one of the potential jurors was improperly excluded from the trial.

During voir dire, the process in which prosecutors and defense attorneys question prospective jurors, either side may move to exclude someone they think may have a strong bias.

When questioned, the potential juror, referred to as “Juror Z,” said he favored the death penalty only “in severe situations” and when it was “very obvious the person would re-offend.”

Under Washington law, a defendant convicted of aggravated first-degree murder would be sentenced to death or life in prison without the possibility of parole. That meant that Brown would have no chance to “re-offend” outside prison.

A death sentence may be imposed in Washington only if all 12 jurors agree. Because this potential juror would presumably reject a death sentence for Brown, the prosecutor sought to remove him from the jury pool. “We have no objection,” the defense lawyer replied, and the trial judge dismissed “Juror Z” from the case’s jury pool.

Writing for the appeals court, Judge Alex Kozinski of Pasadena said “Juror Z” was not flatly opposed to the death penalty. “Most importantly, he promised he would ‘follow the law’ without reservation,” he wrote.

Because “Juror Z was erroneously excluded,” Brown was denied his right to a fair trial, Kozinski concluded. His opinion was joined by Judges Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles and Marcia Berzon of San Francisco.

In June, 2006, when a petition to rehear the case was denied by the appeals court, five of its judges joined in a dissent, saying the decision ignored a 1996 law which says U.S. judges should defer to reasonable decisions made by state courts.

In September, Washington Atty. Gen. Rob McKenna appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial judge had handled the jury selection reasonably and in line with the law.

The justices voted Friday to hear the case of Uttecht vs. Brown in April and to issue a ruling by late June.

david.savage@latimes.com