N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
REED C HR ISTOPHER

B OYSEN, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. R OB ER T HER

ZOG, Supe rinte nde nt, M onroe C orre c t iona l C e nte r, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 14-35919

D.C . No. 3:14-c v-05501-R JB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt J. B ry a

n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2015 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s a nd LEFKOW , *** Se nior Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
DEC 17 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Joa n Hum phre y Le fkow, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by

de signa t ion.R e e d B oy s e n a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt de ny ing his ha be a s
c orpus pe tition. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. §§ 1291 a n d 2253, a

nd we
a ffirm
. This c ourt re vie ws a

distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to dism iss a pe tition for writ of ha be a s c orpus unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254 de novo. G onzale z v . Dunc an , 551 F.3d 875, 879 (9th C ir. 2008). Thepa ne l “ m ay a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision on
any ground supporte d

by the re c ord, e ve n

if it diffe rs from

the distric t c ourt’ s
ra tiona le .” Lambe rt v
. Blodge tt , 393 F.3d 943, 965 (9th C ir. 2004). This c o urt
re vie ws the la st re a s one d sta te -c ourt de c ision, whic h in this c a se is the opinion of the W a shington C ourt of Appe a ls. D e c k v . J e nk ins , 768 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th C ir. 2014). The Antite rrorism

and Effe c tive De at

h Pe n a lty Ac t (AEDPA) a llows for ha be a s re lie f only if the sta

te c ourt’ s de c ision “wa s c ontra ry to, or involve d

an
unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of, c le arly

e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s .” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). B e c a use ne ithe r the distric t c o urt nor the Stat e ha s c ha lle nge d the finding tha t the sta te c ourt viola

te d the Sixth Am e ndm e nt whe n it e xc lude d e vide nc e of the pre c ise te rm s of the
c oope ra t ing witne ss’ s ple a a gre e m e nt, the c a se turns on whe the r the tria l e rror

2re sulte d in “ a c tua l pre judic e ” to B oy se n. Se e Bre c ht v . Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993). Whe n the sta

t e c ourt ha s a djudic ate d the ha be a s pe titione r’ s c la im

on the
m e rits, a s it did here , we turn im m e diate l y to the Bre c ht sta nda rd and fore go a

n
ana ly sis unde r AEDPA. Dav is v . Ay ala , 135 S. C t. 2187, 2199 (2015). This is be c a use the m ore -stringe nt Bre c ht sta nda rd “ obviously subsum e s” the AEDPA sta nda rd for re v i e w of a sta

t e -c ourt de te rm ination of theha rm l e ssne s s of a
c onstitutiona

l viola t ion. Id. (c iting Fry

v . Plile r , 551 U.S. 112, 119–20 (2007)). Unde r Bre c ht , a c tua l pre

judic e m e ans tha

t the tria l e rror “ ha d substa ntia l a n d injurious e ffe c t or influe nc e in de te rm ining thejury ’ s ve rdic t .” Bre c ht , 507 U.S. a t 627 (quoting Bre c ht v . Abrahamson , 944 F.2d 1363, 1375 (7th C ir. 1991) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). In the c onte xt of a c onfronta

tion c la use viola tion, we
a sse ss (1) the im

porta nc e o f the witne ss’ s te stim ony to the prose c ution’ s c a se ; (2) whe the r the te stim ony

wa s c um ulative ; (3) the pre se n c e or a bse nc e of e v ide nc e
c orroborating or c ontra dic ting thete stim ony of the witne s s on m ate ria l points; (4) the e xte nt of c ross-e xam i n ation othe rwise pe rm itte d; a nd (5) the ove ra ll stre ngth of the p rose c ution’ s c a se . M e rolillo v . Yate

s , 663 F.3d 444, 455 (9th C ir. 2011) (c iting De law arev . Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986)). Apply ing the se fa c t ors, we c onc lude tha

t the lim it on B oy s e n’ s c ross-e xam i nation of Pa rke r wa s 3ha

rm le s s e rror be c a

use it did not ha

ve a substa ntia l or injurious e ffe c t or influe nc e in de te rm ining thejury ’ s ve rdic t. (1) Eve n if Pa

rke r’ s te stim ony

wa s ne c e ssa

ry to finding B oy s e n lia

ble a s a princ ipa l , othe r witne sse s’ te stim ony and fire arm

e vide nc e supporte d the
a lte rnative the o ry

tha t B o y se n wa s a

n a c c om p lic e , whic h wa s suffic ie nt to c onvic t . The polic e found two pistols whe n the y de ta ine d Parke r an d B oy se n shortly a fte r the s hooting. Parke r’ s re volve r c ould only a c c ount for thre e of the five or m ore shots he ard by

va rious witne sse s. Thus, by infe re nc e , B oy se n’ s pistol m ust ha ve be e n fire d. That the prose c utor did not spe c i fic a lly argue a c c om

plic e lia bility during c losing a

rgum e nt is ne ithe r he re nor the re sinc e B o y se n wa s c h arge d a s both princ ipa l and a c c om

plic e , the jury

wa s spe c i fic a lly

instruc te d on a c c o m

p lic e lia bility , a nd the jury

e xpre ssly found tha

t B o y se n or his a c c om

plic e posse sse d a fire arm during thea ssa

ults. (2) Although Pa

rke r’ s te stim ony

wa s not c um

ulat ive , in tha

t Pa rke r wa s the only pe rson to te stify

tha t B oy s e n fire d a

pistol a t the Pa lm e r ve hic le , the a bse nc e of c um ulative e vide nc e to support the prose c ution’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t B oy se n wa s the princ ipa l doe s not de fe at the e v ide nc e tha t he wa s a n a c c om plic e . (3) Sinc e B o y se n

ha d the B e re tta

pistol on his pe

rson whe n the polic e offic e rs de ta ine d him

a fte r the shooting, it c an be infe rre d tha t B oy se n shot his 4we a

pon, m aking him

a princ ipa l. In the a lte rnative , B oy se n wa s an a c c om p lic e if he gave Parke r his pistol to shoot. Sinc e B oy s e n’ s B e re tta pistol wa s ne e de d to
a c c ount for them inim

um num be r of shots he ard by

the witne sse s, both the orie s a re
c orroborate d. M ore ove r, B o y se n’ s re l ia nc e on the a

bse n c e of e

je c te d she lls inside the v e hic l e fa ils to a c c o unt for Pa rke r’ s te stim ony

tha t B oy se n fire d his B e re tta pistol outside

the w i ndow of them oving ve hic le , whic h c o uld a lso a c c ount for the la c k of e je c te d she lls inside

the ve hic le
. La stly , Eldridge ’ s a nd Pa lm e r’ s te stim ony
a bout B oy se n’ s c onduc t during theinc ide nt is not ne c e ssa rily c o ntra d i c tory

of Parke r’ s te stim ony , a s e vide nc e sugge sts tha t Pa lm e r a

nd Eldridgesim

ply c ould not se e what B oy se n wa s doing. (4) B oy s e n

wa s a ble to inform

the jury tha t Pa rke r re c e ive d a

“ substa ntia l” de a l, inc luding thedism issa l o f c ha rge s a nd fire arm e nha

nc e m e nts, a

n d tha t Pa rke r ha d re pe ate dly lie d to thepolic e . While disc losure of the pre c ise te rm s of Pa rke r’ s ple a de a l m ay have le d the jury

to c onc lude tha

t Pa rke r ha d re c e ive d a

“ gre at de a l” in e x c ha nge for his te stim o ny , B oy se n’ s c ounse l wa s give n am ple opportunity

to
c ross-e xam ine Parke r on his ve rsion of thefa c ts, inc luding his brie f te stim o ny tha t B oy se n wa s the shoote r. Give n tha t e xte nsive c ross-e xam inat ion, we c annot
c onc lude tha

t e xc lusion of the

pre c ise te rm s of the ple a

a gre e m e n t substa

ntia lly influe n c e d the jury ’ s ve rdic t. 5(5) B oy s e n doe s not dispute that the State ’ s e vide nc e wa s suffic ie nt to prove him guilty be y ond a re a sona ble doubt unde r an a c c o m plic e the ory . M ore ove r, the jury de libe ra te d for no m ore tha n one da y a fte r a thre e -da y tria l a nd did not se e k
any c la rific ation on the

issue s it wa s c ha

rge d with re solving. A s suc h, the re is no indic ation tha

t the prose c ution’ s e vide nc e wa s we ak. W e c onc lude tha

t, unde r Bre c ht , the tria l c ourt’ s re stric tion on B oy se n’ s
c ross-e xam ination of Pa

rke r did not ha

ve a substa ntia l an d injurious e ffe c t or influe n c e in de te rm ining thejury ’ s ve rdic t. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing B oy se n’ s pe tition for a writ of ha

be a s c o rpus. AFFIRM E D.

6