Kayer v. Ryan

Summary

George Russell Kayer was convicted of first degree murder. At sentencing, the judge held that he could not find mental impairment as a mitigating circumstance. He stated that "It has not been presented in any way, shape or form that would rise to that level." Kayer was sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed. In a post-conviction relief (PCR) proceeding in Arizona Superior Court, Kayer argued that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance at the penalty phase. Kayer presented extensive evidence of mental impairment due to mental illness and substance abuse which, he contended, competent counsel would have discovered and presented to the sentencing court. The PCR court denied relief, holding that Kayer's counsel had not been ineffective, and that, in any event, any deficiencies in his counsel's performance did not prejudice Kayer. The Arizona Supreme Court declined review without comment. Kayer then sought federal habeas corpus. The district court denied relief.

Reversed in part. The Sixth Amendment guarantees effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington. A defendant is denied his or her right to effective assistance when "counsel's representation f[alls] below an objective standard of reasonableness" and "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Here, the evidence presented to the PCR court of Kayer's mental impairment established for the first time its very existence. The evidence showed that Kayer was slow to walk and develop and he believed that he was a reincarnated being from another planet. He was dyslexic, was moved from school to school, and got poor grades. He began using drugs in his teens. Kayer was discharged from the Navy a year after he joined due to "severe" mental "impairment." When he was about twenty-one, he became severely addicted to alcohol. He became a compulsive gambler sometime in his twenties. Kayer suffered the emotional highs and lows typical of bipolar disease and also had an extensive family history of mental disease. Thus, this panel concluded that the addition of the statutory mitigating circumstance of mental impairment could have changed the outcome of the sentencing proceeding.

— Silva Demirjian