PASADENA, Calif. — On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Tracy Allen Hampton’s federal habeas petition, affirming the trial court ruling, his murder convictions, and his death sentence.
According to the court opinion, Hampton was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of manslaughter for the 2001 shooting deaths of Charles Findley, Tanya Ramsdell, and Ramsdell’s unborn child. A jury found Hampton guilty, and a separate jury determined that both murder counts warranted a death sentence.
Hampton attempted to challenge the death sentence through four appeals, but the court denied each one.
The opinion states that in May 2001, law enforcement attempted to serve a traffic ticket on Hampton at a home in Phoenix, Arizona. At the time, Hampton was living with the victims, Findley and Ramsdell. Ramsdell was five months pregnant.
Hampton was not at the house when officers arrived, but Findley was. Findley showed officers a photograph of Hampton to prove that he was not the person named in the citation. The officers then left.
The following morning, Hampton and his friends allegedly confronted Findley over his cooperation with the police. The court found that all residents and visitors—except Ramsdell—were intoxicated by methamphetamine. Hampton then shot and killed both Findley and Ramsdell, resulting also in the death of the unborn child.
Following Hampton’s arrest, a jailhouse informant testified that Hampton confessed to the killings, stating he was affiliated with the Aryan Brotherhood and believed Ramsdell’s unborn child was fathered by a Black man. Another witness, a friend of Hampton, testified about how Hampton “executed” the victims.
According to the court, the prosecution argued that Hampton murdered Findley in retaliation for the police interaction and killed Ramsdell for racially motivated reasons.
During the initial trial, the defense attempted to undermine the credibility of the two key witnesses. They impeached the jailhouse informant with his prior convictions and the possibility of receiving probation in exchange for his testimony. They also challenged the friend’s credibility, citing her methamphetamine use at the time of the murders, her intoxication during testimony, and a possible grudge against Hampton.
Hampton also claimed that another friend, a drug dealer who was present and under the influence of amphetamines, had committed the murders. The jury rejected the argument and found Hampton guilty on all counts.
After being sentenced to death, Hampton filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief in Maricopa County Superior Court, asserting that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call witnesses who could have supported his claims of innocence. He also argued that counsel failed to present his mental health diagnosis during sentencing.
The defense also argued that the prosecution committed a Napue violation—meaning the government knowingly failed to correct false testimony—thus violating Hampton’s due process rights. The Superior Court denied the petition.
Judge Michelle Friedland dissented from the appellate panel’s decision. She found that Hampton’s trial attorneys were “constitutionally defective” for failing to present testimony from two witnesses who claimed another person committed the murders and a third witness who cast doubt on the credibility of the state’s main witness.
Judge Friedland noted that the state’s case rested almost entirely on two witnesses and that no physical evidence was presented. She highlighted that the prosecution’s witnesses were also friends of the accused and had used methamphetamine, countering the trial court’s reasoning that potential defense witnesses were unreliable for those same reasons.
The Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that failing to call the three witnesses was a tactical decision, as they were not present during the murders and might have contradicted themselves. Judge Friedland rejected that rationale, arguing it mirrored flaws in the prosecution’s own case.
