C harl es L . R ya n i s s ub st i tut ed for hi s pre dece ss or D ora B . S chri ro as * D i re ct or of the A ri zona D epartm entof C orre ct i on s. F ed. R . A pp . P . 43 (c )( 2).

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 a nd 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. 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 DA VI D S C OT T DE T R I C H, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. C HA R L E S L . R YA N, OF AR I Z ON A * D EPA RTM EN T O F CO RRECTI O N S, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 99001 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 3 - c v - 0 0 2 2 9 - D CB 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona D a vi d C . B ury , 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 J a nua ry 27, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , M cK E O W N , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D avi d D etri ch— se nt ence d t o d ea th b y a n A ri zona j ud ge af t era j ury conv i ct ed hi m of m urder, ki dn appi ng , and sexual abuse— pet i t i on ed for habeas 

# FI LED AU G 20 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

r e l i e f i n f e de r a l di s tr i c tc our t . I n a s e pa r a t e opi ni on f i l e d t oda y , w e r e ve r s e d the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of habeas re l i ef on D etri ch’ s c l ai m of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l du ri ng the penal ty phase , and rem anded for the di stri ctcourtt o i ss ue a c o n d itio n a l w r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s . D etri ch v. Sch ri ro , N o . 0 8 - 9 9 0 0 1 . I n h is pet i t i on , D etri ch al so al l eged vi ol at i on s of hi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s t o a fa i r tri al , an i m part i al j ury, and d ue process du ri ng the gu i l tph as e of hi s tri al , w hen the tri al c our t( 1) e xc us e d j ur or s ba s e d on the i roppos i t i on t o the de a th pe na l ty , a nd ( 2) r e f us e d t o a l l ow voi rdi r e on j ur or s ’ r a c i a l bi a s e s . A ppl y i ng the s t a nda r ds of the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f

f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996 ( “ A E D P A ” ) , P ub. L . N o. 10 4-13 2, 11 0 S t at . 12 14 , the di stri ctcourtdeni ed re l i ef on the m er i t s, and d ec l i ned t o i s s ue a c e r t i f

i c a t e of appe a l abi l i ty on the s e i s s ue s . D e tr i c h pr e s e nt e d the u n c e r tif ie d is s u e s in h is o p e n in g b r ie f , p u r s u a n t to C ir c u it R u le 2 2 - 1 ( e ) . W e grant ed a c ert i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty on al l of the un ce rt i fi ed i ss ues a nd re ce i ved s u p p l e me n t a l b r i e f

i n g f r o m th e p a r t i e s . W e a f

f i r m. U nd erthe A E D P A , a f

eder al courtm aygranta s t at e pri soner’ s habea s pet i t i on w i th res pectt o a cl ai m thatw as “ adj ud i ca t ed on the m er i t s i n S t at e c ou rt pr oc e e di ngs ” onl y i f

the s t a t e c our t ’ s a dj udi c a t i on: (1) r es ul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contra ryt o, or i nv ol ved an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed F e de r a l l a w a s de t e r m i ne d by the S upr e m e C our tof the3 U ni t ed S t at es ; or (2) r es ul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as base d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e r m i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d in th e S ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g . 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). W e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on that , un der th e A E D P A , n ei th er o f D etri ch ’ s g u i l tp h ase cl ai m s i s m eri t o ri o u s. F i r s t , D e tr i c h a l l e ge d tha tc ontr a ry t o W ith e rs p o o n v . I llin o is , 391 U . S . 510 ( 1968) , A dam s v . T

ex as , 448 U . S . 38 ( 1980) , a nd W a in w r ig h t v . W

itt , 469 U . S . 412 (1 9 8 5 ), th ree j u ro rs w ere i n co rrect l y d i sm i ssed fo r th ei r v i ew s o n th e d eath p en al ty. Stat e v . D etri ch , 9 3 2 P .2 d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 6 ( A r iz . 1 9 9 7 ) . A lth o u g h D e tr ic h g e n e r a lly obj e c t e d t o de a th qua l i f i c a t i on pr i ort o the c om m e nc e m e ntof voi rdi r e , the A r i z ona S up re m e C ou rtfoun d thatD etri ch had w ai ved the i ss ue, abse ntfund am ent al error, because he f

ai l ed t o o bj ec tt o eac h j uror’ s di sm i ss al for c ause du ri ng the vo i r di re p r o c e s s . Id . T h e A r iz o n a S u p r e m e C o u r t ap p lie d th e s ta n d a r d e x p la in e d in W ai nw r i ght , and fou nd no fund am ent al error because e ac h o f the three excuse d j urors “ expres sl y c on fi rm ed thatthei r vi ew s on the death p enal ty w ou l d i nt er fe re w i th thei r del i bera t i on s i n the gu i l tph as e of thi s c as e. ” Id . W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t th e c la im w a s p r o p e r ly exhaust ed and thatthe A ri zona S up re m e C ou rtci t ed and app l i ed the corre ct s t a n d a r d f

r o m W ai nw r i ght . D e tr i c h’ s a r gum e ntw a s s qua r e l y r e j e c t e d by the S upr e m e C our ti n L ockhart v. McCre e , 47 6 U . S . 16 2, 18 3 (19 86 ) ( ho l di ng that4

W i the rs poon a nd A da m s a r e l i m i t e d t o c api t a l s e nt e nc i ng a nd do notappl y t o the

“ j ury ’ s m or e tr a di t i ona l r ol e of f i ndi ng the f

a c t s a nd de t e r m i ni ng the gui l tor in n o c e n c e o f

a c r im in a l d e f

e n d a n t” ) ; s e e a ls o E v a n s v . L e w is , 855 F . 2d 631, 635 ( 9th C i r . 1988) ( c ons trui ng McCre e a s h o ld in g th a t W i the rs poon a nd A da ms ap p ly on l y i n the se nt enci ng cont ext , ra ther than atthe gu i l tph as e) . T here fore , w e a gree th a t th e s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is io n w a s n o t “c o n tr a ry to ” n o ra n “u n r e a s o n ab le ap p l i c a t i o n o f

” c l e a r l y e s t ab l i s h e d S u p r e m e C o u r tl a w. S e c ond, D e tr i c h a l l e ge s tha tc ontr a ry t o T ur ne rv . Mur r ay , 476 U . S . 28 ( 1986) a nd R osal es -L op ezv. U ni ted Stat es , 45 1 U . S . 18 2 (19 81 ), the tri al court e rr e d b y r e f

u s in g to q u e s tio n ju r o r s o n r a c ia l p r e ju d ic e d u r in g v o ird ir e . D etri ch , 932 P . 2d a t1335. O n the ba s i s of the m ot i ons a nd the j ury voi rdi r e tr a ns c r i pt , the A r i z ona S upr e m e C our tf ound tha tD e tr i c h w a i ve d thi s i s s ue , a nd i tdi d not c o n d u c t a f

u n d a m e n ta l e rr o rr e v ie w o n th e m e r its o f th e c la im . I

d. A l though the pa r t i e s di s a gr e e aboutw he the rthi s i s s ue w a s pr ope r l y e xha us t e d, w e a gr e e w i th the d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t th is c la im m a y b e d is m is s e d o n th e m e r its . See Casse t t v. S tew a rt , 40 6 F . 3d 61 4, 62 4 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( “ [A ] fe dera l courtm aydeny an une xha us t e d pe t i t i on on the m e r i t s onl y w he n i ti s pe r f e c t l y c l e a rtha tthe appl i c a nt do es no tra i se even a col orabl e f eder al cl ai m . ”) . U nd er R ista i n o v. R o ss , 4 2 4 U . S. 58 9, 59 7 (19 76 ), w hen i ss ues of r ac e a re “ i nextri cabl y bou nd up w i th the cond uct5

of the tri al ” or the defense pres ent ed i s “ l i kel y t o i nt ensi fythe prej ud i ce that i nd i vi du al m em bers of the j ury m i gh tharbor, ” the tri al courtm ustal l ow vo i r di re in to r a c ia l b ia s if

it is r e q u e s te d b y th e d e f e n d a n t. I d. H er e, D etri ch’ s pas si ng m ent i on of ra ce i n h i s propo se d j ury quest i on nai re a nd c i t a t i on t o T

urnera nd R o sa l es-L o

p ez i n h i s m ot i on for i nd i vi du al i ze d se qu es t er ed vo i r di re and for the j ury t o fi l l ou ta w ri tt en qu es t i on nai re , w er e s i m pl y i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o a l e r tthe tr i a l j udge of the i m por t a nc e of

a s ki ng que s t i ons r e l a t e d t o r a c i a l pr e

j udi c e a s pa r tof

the j ury voi rdi r e . T he m e m or a ndum s u p p o r tin g D e tr ic h ’s m o tio n m a d e n o m e n tio n o f th e im p o r ta n c e o f

r a c e to D etri ch’ s def

ense . A nd , as the di stri ctcourtpo i nt ed ou t , w hen the tri al j ud ge as ked i f there w er e a ny other i ss ues pri or t o p as si ng the panel for c ause , D etri ch never e x p la in e d th e im p o r ta n c e o f r a c ia l is s u e s to th e d e f

e n s e , a s k e d th e ju d g e to qu es t i on the j ury on rac i al bi as , or pl ac ed hi s obj ec t i on s t o the l ac k o f r ac i al bi as v o ird ir e o n th e r e c o r d . T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e it is p e r f

e c tly c le a rth a t D e tr ic h ’s c la im d o es n o t raise ev en a c o lo ra b le fe d er al claim , w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s c o n c lu s io n th a t D e tr ic h f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t th e s ta te c o u r t’s r e je c tio n o f

th is c la im w a s “c o n tr a ry to , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d F e d e r a l la w a s d e te r m in e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) .6

AF F I R ME D.