In a per curiam opinion on Monday, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in overturning the death sentence of inmate George Kayer, who robbed and murdered his companion on a gambling trip in Laughlin, Nevada, in 1994.

Kayer shot Delbert Haas in the head during their drive home, hid Haas’s body in the bushes alongside the road, stole his belongings and shot him again. After stealing Haas’s keys, Kayer drove to Haas’s house and stole several firearms and other belongings. He and a mutual friend sold several of Haas’s belongings before the mutual friend informed the police of Kayer’s crimes. A trial court jury found Kayer guilty of first-degree murder.

Kayer subsequently refused to cooperate with a mitigation specialist prior to sentencing, and a judge ruled he was able to make that decision. Under Arizona law at the time, a judge determined whether aggravating and mitigating factors were present, not a jury, and could only sentence the accused to the death penalty if at least one aggravating fact was present and there were no significant mitigating circumstances. The judge found two aggravating circumstances: a previous conviction for first-degree burglary and Kayer’s financial motive for murdering Haas. The judge found only one mitigating circumstance, the importance of Kayer in his son’s life, which the judge found insufficient when weighed with the aggravating circumstances to bar a death sentence. The judge imposed a death sentence, which Kayer appealed on the grounds that he had received inadequate counsel due to his attorney’s failure to investigate mitigating circumstances. The appellate court rejected his claim because he had denied the assistance of the mitigation specialist.

Kayer also filed a habeas corpus petition with the federal district court, which denied Kayer’s claim for his failure to show prejudice in receiving insufficient assistance. The Ninth Circuit, however, reversed, because Kayer was able to prove in his appeal that there were sufficient mitigating factors present that were not considered or presented by his counsel.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a federal court may only grant a writ of habeas corpus “based on claims that were ‘adjudicated on the merits’ by a state court.” If a state court applied federal law correctly to “reasonably determined facts in the process of adjudicating a claim on the merits, a federal habeas court may not disturb the state court’s decision unless” a fair-minded person could not disagree that an error was made. In this case, the Supreme Court found that fair minds could disagree about whether Kayer received ineffective assistance from the mitigation specialist. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the Ninth Circuit Court violated AEDPA in overturning Kayer’s death sentence. The court reversed and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.