N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ILLIAM W ARR EN W IELAND, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. S. FR ANK THOM PSON, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 13-35173

D.C . No. 3:10-c v-00059-M A
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M a lc olm F. M arsh, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

11, 2014 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PAEZ, W

ATFORD , a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. The sta te tria l c o urt found suffic ie nt e vide nc e to c onvic t W illia m W arre n W ie la nd unde r Ore gon R e vise d Statute s se c tion 163.095(2)(e ). Se eJ ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Unde r our doubly

de fe re ntia l re vie w, se e C ole man v . J

ohnson , 132 S. C t. 2060, 2062 (2012) (pe r c uriam ), an d “ vie wing the 

# FIL E D
JUL 25 2014 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.Pa ge 2 of 6

e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to the prose c ution,” J

ac k son , 443 U.S. a

t 319,
we c onc lude tha

t fa ir-m inde d jurists c ould find the State ’ s e vide n c e suffic ie nt. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d); Harrington v. Ric hte r , 131 S. C t. 770, 786 (2011). 1. A re a sona

ble jury c ould ha ve found tha

t W ie la nd c om m itte d a rson in 1986 ba se d on e vide nc e de sc ribing thec irc um sta n c e s of the 1986 fire s. The W ie la nd fam ily suffe re d through thre e fire s in 1986, the first two of whic h
oc c urre d on M onda

y s . Afte r the se c ond fire , C indy W ie la nd a nd vic tim Kathe rine Kim bre l de c ide d

tha t Kim bre l would sle e p in the living room on the ne x t Sunda

y night in order to c a tc h

the arsonist on M onda

y m orning. C indy and Kim bre l told W ie la nd, a s we ll a s frie nds of the fam ily , a bout the ir pla

n. B ut the arsonist thwa rte d the pla

n by unc ha ra c te ristic a lly

se tting his ne x t fire

— in the loc ke d house

— on a

Sunda y . A re a sona

ble jury c ould ha

ve infe rre d tha

t W ie la n d wa s the
arsonist ba se d on W ie la

nd’ s knowle dge of the pla n , his a c c e ss to the loc ke d house , and his m otive to c om

m it a rson. Afte r e a c h of the fire s, W i e la nd c o lle c te d a substa ntia l insura

nc e re c ove ry . W ie la nd’ s pe c ulia

r re a c tion to the

ne a r-de ath e xpe rie nc e of his wife and
c hildre n stre ngthe ne d the infe re nc e tha t W ie la nd wa s the arsonist. Afte r the third 1986 fire , W ie la

nd a ppe are d ne ithe r gra te ful to thepa sse rsby who he lpe d sa

ve his fam ily nor e m otiona l a

bout these rious da

nge r a nd tra um a his fa m ily ha d justPa ge 3 of 6

e xpe rie nc e d. A re a sona

ble jury c ould ha v e found tha

t the se aty pic a l re a c tions im plie d tha t W ie la nd wa s the arsonist. 2. A re a sona

ble jury c ould ha ve found tha

t Kim bre l suspe c t e d W ie la

nd wa s the a rsonist. Afte r the third 1986 fire , Kim bre l ha d a c onve rsation with her pa stor that le ft him with the im

p re ssion tha

t Kim bre l “ kne w what wa s going on but didn’ t fe e l like she c ould ta lk.” Kim bre l a lso told longtim

e frie nd JulieR a

n e y a bout the third fire . In re sponse , R ane y sa id tha t it se e m e d

like som e one wa s try ing to kill the W ie la nds, but Kim

b re l re plie d tha

t the re a l ta

rge ts we re C indy

and the W ie la

nd
c hildre n. R ane y

told Kim b re l to “ ge t out of the re ,” but Kim bre l re plie d tha

t she
c ould not le ave C indy , a

n d C indy would not le ave W ie l and. A re a sona ble jury
c ould ha v e infe rre d from

this c onve rsation tha

t Kim b re l— b y e xc l uding W ie la

nd from the list of vic tim s a

nd sugge sting tha

t C indy would be sa fe r if she le ft him

— signa le d tha

t W ie la nd wa s the pe rpe trator. 3. A re a sona

ble jury a lso c ould ha

ve found tha

t W i e la nd kne w Kim

bre l suspe c te d him
. In the da

y s prior to them

urde r, Kim

bre l’ s de m e anor c ha

nge d. While she wa s pre viously e n e rge tic and e nthusia stic , she be c a m e re se rve d a

nd quie t. She re a d sc ripture a bout fe ar in c hurc h , a

nd, a s one frie nd sa i d, Kim bre l sim ply “ c lam m e d up.” The jury

c ould ha ve infe rre d tha

t W ie la nd, who live d withPa ge 4 of 6

Kim bre l at the tim e , obse rve d the sa m e c h ange s in Kim

bre l’ s de m e anor tha

t he r frie nds sa w. Evide nc e of te nsion be twe e n Kim b re l a nd W ie la nd a l so supporte d

the infe re n c e tha

t W ie la nd kne w tha

t Kim b re l suspe c te d

him of a rson. Afte r the third fire , the W ie la

n ds hire d Je ff Starr to he lp c le an a

nd c le a r the dam a ge d house . Sta rr te stifie d tha

t he obse rve d disa gre e m e nts be twe e n W ie la n d a nd Kim bre l a nd tha t te nsion m arre d the ir re lat i onship. Sta rr c ould not de sc ribe the substa nc e of a ny spe c ific disa gre e m e nt, but be c a use he obse rve d

this te nsion shortly

be fore the
m urde r an d a fte r Kim

bre l’ s sta rk c ha nge in de m e anor, the jury c ould ha ve infe rre d that W ie la nd kne w Kim

b re l suspe c te d him
. 4. Fina lly , vie w e d in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution, a
re a s ona ble jury c ould ha v e found tha

t W ie la nd kille d Kim

bre l to c onc e a l his a

rson. First, W ie la

nd ha d a unique opportunity

to c om m it the m urde r: Whe n the m

urde r took pla c e , he and Kim

bre l we re a lone outsidethe farm house
. His da

ughte r wa s
away , his son wa s oc c upie d watc hing c artoons in the house , an d his wife wa s
a sle e p. No e m

ploy e e s we re on the W ie la nd prope rty

whe n Kim

bre l wa s m

urde re d. One e m ploy e e ha d b e e n sc he d

ule d to work a

t the tim e during whic h

the m urde r took pla c e , but W ie la

nd c a lle d the night be fore to te ll the e m p loy e e not to c om e .Pa ge 5 of 6

Se c ond, phy sic a l e vide nc e disc ove re d at the c rim e sc e ne im plic ate d W ie la nd. Polic e found a

footprint m atc hing W ie la nd’ s boots c l ose to Kim

b re l’ s body de spite W ie la

nd’ s c la im

tha t he ha d not be e n within 30 fe e t of the body
. Additiona lly , tra ine d tra c k e rs te stifie d tha t, ba se d on tra c ks a

round Kim

bre l’ s body , the m

urde re r ha d to ha

ve c om e from

the dire c tion of W ie la

nd’ s house
. Take n in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution, e v ide nc e of the boot print a nd the t ra c ks pointe d to W ie la

nd a s the kille r. Third, y e ars a fte r W ie la

nd sold the

farm , the prope rty ’ s ne w owne r disc ove re d a

knife , the like ly

m urde r we a pon, in W ie la

n d’ s old ba

rn. The knife ha d be longe d to Kim

bre l and wa s hidde n in a

pipe in the ba

rn. A re a sona

ble jury
c ould ha v e infe rre d from

te stim ony

a bout theknife tha

t the m urde re r wa s a W ie la nd-fam ily inside r with a c c e ss to thekitc he n. The jury c o uld a l so ha

ve infe rre d tha

t the sam e inside r sta she d the m urde r we a pon in a fam ilia

r loc ation on the W ie la nd fa rm . 5. B e c a use W ie la n d doe s not ra ise a

c olora ble fe de ra l c la im , we ne e d not
a ddre s s the State ’ s proc e dura l de fa ult a rgum e nt. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(b)(2); C asse tt v
. Ste w art , 406 F.3d 614, 623–24 (9th C ir. 2005). W e a lso de c line to
a ddre s s W ie la

nd’ s unc e rtifie d issue s, a s he ha s not m a de a substa ntia l showing of the d e nia l of a

c onstitutiona

l right. 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c )(2).Pa ge 6 of 6

AFFIRM E D.