N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ANNE M AR IE HAR

R ISON, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. DEB OR AH K. JOHNSON, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-55400

D.C . No. 2:09-c v-07983-JSL-R Z M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia J. Spe nc e r Le tts, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 4, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE, B EA, a

nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Anne M arie Ha rrison a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of he r pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus, a l le ging tha

t the C a l ifornia

Supre m e C ourt e rre d in re je c ting he r N

apue fa lse e vide nc e an d Brady suppre ssion of m at e ria l e vide nc e c l a im s. B e c a

use Ha rrison’ s fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition wa s file d a fte r the



# F IL ED M AR 20 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.e na c tm e nt of AEDPA in 1996, tha t sta tute gove rns he r pe t ition. Se e W oodford v . Garc e au , 538 U.S. 202, 210 (2003). This C ourt will gra nt Ha rrison’ s pe tition only if the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt’ s de n ia l of Ha rrison’ s sta

te ha be a s pe t ition

“ re sulte d in a de c ision tha t wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d

an unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le arly

e s ta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de t e rm i ne d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s” or “ re sulte d in a de c ision tha t wa s ba se d on a

n unre a s ona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c ts in light of the e vide nc e pre se nte d in the Stat e c ourt proc e e ding.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1)–(2). B e c a use the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt sum

m arily de nie d Ha

rrison’ s sta

te ha be a s pe tition, this C ourt

“ m ust de te rm ine what a

rgum e nts or the orie s . . . c o uld hav esupporte d . . . the sta

te c ourt’ s de c ision; a

nd the n [we ] m ust a sk whe the r it is possible fa irm i nde d jurists c ould disagre e that thoseargum e nts or the o rie s a re inc onsiste nt with theholding in a prior de c ision of [theUnite d State s Supre m e ] C ourt.” H arrington v. Ric hte r , 131 S. C t. 770, 786 (2011) (em pha sis a dde d). First, Ha rrison’ s N apuefa lse e v ide nc e c la im ba se d on M i c ha e l Lope z ’ s a lle ge dly fa lse tria l te stim o ny

fa ils be c a

use Harrison ha s not shown tha t Lope z ’ s tria l te s tim o ny wa s fa lse , nor tha t the prose c ution “ kne w or should ha ve known” that this te stim ony

wa s fa lse . Se e He in v . Sullivan , 601 F.3d 897, 908 (9th C ir. 2010) (sta ting tha t to pre va il on a N

apuec la im , a

de fe nda nt “ m ust show tha

t (1) the 2te stim ony

(or e vide nc e ) wa s a c tua lly fa lse , (2) the prose c ution kne w or should have known tha

t the te stim ony

[or e vide nc e ] wa s a c tua lly fa l se , a nd (3) tha t the fa lse te stim ony

[or e vide nc e ] wa s m ate ria l.” (a lte rations in origina l ) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d)). In pa

rtic ula r, a witne ss’ s “ l ate r re c a

ntation of his tria l te stim ony doe s not [ne c e ssa rily ] re nde r his e arlie r te stim o ny fa lse .” Se e Alle n v . W

oodford , 395 F.3d 979, 994 (9th C ir. 2005). Simila rly , Ha rrison’ s N apue fa lse e v ide nc e c la im

ba se d on De te c tive M c Elde rry ’ s a l le ge dly fa lse tria l te stim o ny fa ils be c a use the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt c ould ha

ve re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t this te stim ony

wa s not fa lse . Se c ond, Ha

rrison’ s Brady

suppre ssion of e vide n c e c la i m ba s e d on a

n

“ im plie d a gre e m e nt” be twe e n Lope zand the prose c ution fa ils be c a use Ha rrison ha s not shown tha

t a ny suc h a gre e m e nt e xiste d. Se e J ac k son v . Brow n , 513 F.3d 1057, 1071 (9th C ir. 2008) (sta t ing tha t to suc c e e d on a B rady

c la im , a de fe n da nt m ust de m onstra

t e thre e e le m e nts: “ (1) The e vide nc e at issuem ust be fav ora

ble to the a c c use d . . . , (2) tha

t e vide nc e m

ust ha ve be e n suppre sse d by

the State , a

nd (3) pre j udic e m ust ha v e e nsue d” (inte rna l quota tion m arks om i tte d )). As the distric t c ourt note d, “ [Harrison’ s] spe c ulation tha t the re m ust ha ve be e n a prom ise or de a l, or e ve n tha

t Lope z be lie ve d the re m

ust ha ve be e n a prom ise , is not suffic i e nt to show tha t the re wa s a

ny suc h de a l tha

t ne e de d to be disc l ose d.” ER 18. Fina lly , 3Harrison’ s Brady c la i m ba se d on he r a sse rtion tha t Lope z ’ s tria l te stim ony

wa s

“ c ross-c onta

m inat e d” by

inform ation from

Jua n Tova r’ s re c orde d

ja il c e l l c onve rsation with Jona

tha n M iram onte s fa ils be c a

use Ha rrison ha s not shown tha

t any suc h “ c ross-c o nta

m i nation” oc c urre d. Nor ha s Ha rrison shown the

prose c ution suppre sse d e vide nc e of c ross-c onta m i nation. Ha

rrison c ross-e x am ine d Lope z at tria l and c ould ha

ve que stione d Lope z a

b out whe the r he wa s told of Tova r’ s sta te m e nt to M iram o nte s . M ore ove r, the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt c ould ha ve re a s ona bly re fuse d to be lie ve Lope z ’ s 2007 de c la ration, upon which Ha

rrison re lie s to support her c la im tha t the “ c ross-c onta

m ination” e vide nc e e xiste d. Ultim ate ly , the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt c ould ha

ve re a sona

bly re je c te d both of Ha

rrison’ s N apuec la i m s a

nd both of Ha

rrison’ s Brady

c la im s. W e the re fore AFFIRM the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of Ha rrison’ s pe tition for a

writ of ha be a s c orpus. AFFIRM E D.

4