Horn, Martin, et al. v. Banks, George
Horn, Martin, et al. v. Banks, George
Horn, Martin, et al. v. Banks, GeorgeQuestions presented
Whether the federal standard of review required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) for habeas corpus cases should be applied retroactively, and whether the 3rd Circuit should have considered the issue in deciding the case?
Brief
George Banks, was convicted of 12 counts of first-degree murder stemming from a series of shootings on Sept. 25, 1982.
During the penalty phase of his trial, the jury was instructed, in part: ""The sentence you impose will depend upon your findings concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Crime[s] Code in this Commonwealth provides that the verdict must be a sentence of death if the jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, or if the jury unanimously finds one or more aggravating circumstances which outweigh any mitigating circumstance or circumstances.""
Based on those instructions, Banks was sentenced to death.
Following numerous unsuccessful appeals in state court and before a federal trial court on habeas corpus relief, Banks appealed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed on Oct. 31, 2001.
The appeals court granted Banks federal habeas relief from his death sentence. The court did so by applying a standard of review required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) standard of review, and concluding that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had unreasonably applied federal law in evaluating Banks' claim that his penalty phase jury instructions and verdict forms were improper. The appeals court did not address whether the federal standard of review should be applied retroactively to Banks, it stated, because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had not ruled on retroactivity.
On June 17, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously told the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to re-consider its decision that would have taken Banks off death row.
The unsigned opinion, without oral arguments in the case, instructed the appeals court to consider the threshold issue of retroactivity before applying the federal standard under the AEDPA.