T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e R i c ha r d M i l l s , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe * * C e ntr a l D i s tr i c tof

I l l i noi s , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T V I CTO R D I EP, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. C H E R Y L K . P L I L E R , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N os . 05- 15397; 05- 15398 D. C . No . C V 0 3 - 0 0 3 0 8 MHP ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a ry l i n H a l l P a t e l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r3, 2009 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : G O O D W I N a n d W . FLETCH ER, Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d M I LLS, D i stri ct ** Judg e. C a l i f

orni as t a t e pr i s one rV i c t orD i e p appe a l s f r om apa rt i a l de ni a l of

hi s 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e titio n a n d a s s e rts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in f a ilin g to gr a nta n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 2253 a nd 

# FI LED NO V 25 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f

ah ab e a s p e titio n d e n o v o . Koe rne rv . G r i gas , 328 F . 3d 1039, 1045- 46 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . A di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of a n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng on a h ab e a s p e titio n is r e v ie w e d f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . T

i lc oc k v . B udge , 538 F . 3d 1138, 1143 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . T hi s c a s e i s gove rne d bythe A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E ff ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ctof 19 96 (“ A E D P A ”) w hi ch bars fe dera l habeas re l i ef u n le s s th e s ta te c o u rt a d ju d ic a tio n w a s “c o n tr a ryto , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le appl i ca t i on of cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rt of the U ni t ed S t at es ” or w as “ base d o n an u nrea sonabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s. ” 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . W e a f f i rm. D i ep ar gu es thathi s S i xth A m endm entri gh t s w er e vi ol at ed w hen st at e tri al c ourtj ur or s di s c us s e d A s i a ns a nd s pe c ul a t e d tha tD i e p w a s aga ng m e m be r . T he s ta te c o u rt’s tr e a tm e n t o f th e s e d is c u s s io n s w a s n o t c o n tr a ryto , o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le appl i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw . N or w as i tbase d o n an unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s . F urthe r , D i e p i s unabl e t o s how tha tthe c onve r s a t i ons aboutA s i a ns a nd ga ng m e m be r s hi p ha d a“ ‘ s ubs t a nt i a l a nd i nj ur i ous ef fe ctor i nfl uence i n d et erm i ni ng the j ury’ s ver di ct . ’ ” B r e c ht v . A br aham s on , 507 U . S . 619, 623 ( 1993) ( quot i ng Kot teakos v . U ni ted Stat es , 328 U . S . 750, 776 ( 1946) ) . T he r e f

or e , the di s tr i c tc ourtw a s c orr e c tt o de nyD i e p’ s S i xth A m e ndm e nt c l a i m.3

T he di stri ctj ud ge di d n otabuse herdi sc re t i on i n n otgrant i ng an evi dent i ary he a r i ng be c aus e the habe a s pe t i t i on di d notr a i s e a nys i gni f i c a ntf a c tua l que s t i ons r e g a r d in g ju ry m is c o n d u c t, a n d in s te a d s u g g e s te d th a t th e r e w e r e e n o u g h f a c ts in th e r e c o r d to d e c id e th e is s u e . M or e ove r , D i e p i s ba rr e d f r om r e c e i vi ng a n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng be c aus e he

“ f a i l e d t o de ve l op the f

a c tua l ba s i s of

ac l a i m i n S t a t e c ourtpr oc e e di ngs . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2254( e ) ( 2) . T he t e rm “ f a i l e d t o de ve l op” ha s be e n i nt e rpr e t e d t o m e a n a

“ l a c k of di l i ge nc e , ors om e gr e a t e rf aul t , a ttr i but abl e t o the pr i s one rorthe pri soner’ s c ou nsel . ” Mi c hae l W i l l i am s v . T

ay lor , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 2 0 , 4 3 2 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . D i ep re l i es heavi l y on sup pl em ent al j uror decl ar at i on s t o adv ocat e f or an e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng. H ow e ve r , the s e s uppl e m e nt a l de c l a r a t i ons w e r e notpa rtof the r e c or d be f

or e the s t a t e appe l l a t e c ourt . T he c ourtnot e d tha tthe de c l a r a t i ons w e r e n o t p la c e d in th e r e c o r d , d e s p ite a s s u r a n c e s f r o m c o u n s e l. A t o r a l a r g u m e n t, D i ep ’ s co u n sel co u l d n o tex p l ai n w h y p rev i o u s co u n sel d i d n o ti n tro d u ce th ese d o cu m en t s. B ecau se th e reco rd w as n o td ev el o p ed i n th e st at e co u rtp ro ceed i n g s, D i e p i s ba rr e d f

r om r e c e i vi ng a n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng. AF F I RME D.