William Gittere, Warden, et al. v. Jose Lorente Echavarria

—CAPITAL CASE Jose Lorrente Echavarria shot and killed FBI Special Agent John Bailey during a failed bank robbery in June 1990. During a pretrial discussion with a codefendant’s counsel and the State, the trial judge disclosed that he had been investigated by Agent Bailey in the 1980’s but that the investigation did not result in any charges. For unknown reasons, no one told Echavarria about the old investigation. A Nevada jury found Echavarria guilty of firstdegree murder and sentenced him to death. On direct appeal, he made a claim of judicial bias based on the judge’s conduct at trial. The Nevada Supreme Court summarily denied the claim. But when details of the old investigation surfaced during federal habeas discovery, Echavarria renewed his claim of bias, asserting what he called “compensatory” bias. The Nevada Supreme Court held that new evidence on the source of the bias was insufficient to warrant a departure from the law of the case from the direct appeal. The federal district court granted relief under AEDPA, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, applying de novo review after concluding that the Nevada Supreme Court never decided Echavarria’s claim. The question presented is: 1. Whether the Nevada Supreme Court’s application of the law of the case in the state habeas appeal was an adjudication of Echavarria’s compensatory bias claim on the merits that can be read consistently with relevant clearly established federal law on judicial bias.