N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
R OB IN LYNN GR

E SSER , Pe titione r - Appe l la nt,

v. STEVE FR

ANKE, Supe rinte nde nt TR C I,
R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 14-35412 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-02073-HZ
M EM OR A NDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M a rc o A

. He rna nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 13, 2015 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : TASHIM A, GILM AN, ** a n d B EA, C i rc u it Judge s. R obin Gre sse r a

ppe a ls from the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of h is f ed er al h a be a s pe tition, a lle ging tha t his tria l c ounse l p rovide d c onstitutional l y ine ffe c tive

a ssista nc e . Following a jury tria l i n a n Ore gon s ta te c o urt, Gre sse r was co n v i c te d

o f first-de gre e unla

wful se xua l pe ne t

ra tion with a fore ign obje c t a nd first-d eg r ee



# FIL ED

OCT 26 2015

M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he Honora

b le R ona ld Le e Gilm a n, Se nior C irc uit Judge for the Unite d Sta t e s C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.se xua l a

buse

. The c h a rge s ste m

m e d from a n inc i de nt be tween Gr es s er a nd FHG, the n a 10-y e a r-old girl, during a

sle e pove r a t

Gre s se r’ s house in July

2003. At Gre sse r’ s tria l in April 2005, the sta t e c a lle d fa m i ly acq u a inta nc e s Ta ra Frost a n d Ze na De la

ne y a s its first two witne sse s. Frost’ s t e stim ony co n t ai n e d the following e xc h a nge with the prose c utor: Q. Did [FHG] e v e r te ll y ou thi n g s t ha t sounde d outla

ndish or like lie s ? A. No. Q. Did she e v e r try to ge t y our a tte n tion i n wa y s tha t we re ne ga tive ? A. No, she did not. Gre sse r’ s tria l c o u nse l fa ile d to obje c t. During De l a ne y ’ s te stim ony , the following e xc ha nge wi th t

he prose c utor
tra nspire d: Q. Oka

y . N ow, a fte r [ F H G ] t old y ou wha t she did, wha t did y ou do? A. I c al l ed t h e p olic e , a n d first I c a lle d [FHG] ’ s m om , a nd the n I c a lle d the p olic e a nd told the m the re ’ s a l ittle g irl he re tha t ne e ds t o ta lk to the m be c a use I didn’ t know wha t to do. I kne w this little girl ha d be e n – y ou c ou l d t ell she wa s t e lling t he truth. I m e a n she ’ s – y ou c ould just te ll.

-2-A g ai n, Gre sse r’ s tria l c ounse l did not o bje c t. T ria l c ounse l ’ s fa i lure to obje c t t o

the s e p ortions of Frost’ s a nd De la ne y ’ s te stim ony form s th e ba sis of Gre sse r’ s ine ffe c tive -a s sista

nc e -of-c ounse l c la im pre se nte d on a ppe a l. The sta te p o s t-c o n vic tion c ourt fa ile d to disc uss this pa rtic ula r c la im ,
c a using t h e pa

rtie s t o disa gre e o n whe the r w e should a p ply a de fe re ntia l or de novo
sta nda rd of re vie w. B e c a

use w e w ould re a c h the sa m e c onc lusion unde r e ithe r
sta nda rd, we will a ssum e , without de c iding, tha t de novo re vie w a

pplie s. A d e fe nda

n t is de n ie d his Sixth A m e n dm e nt right to the e ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l whe n (1) his “ c ounse l’ s pe rform a n ce wa s de fic ie nt,” a nd (2) tha t

“ de fic ie nt pe rf

o r m a nc e pre judic e d the de fe nse .” Stric k land v
. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). To de m onstra te de fic ie nt pe rform a nc e , “ the de fe nda nt m ust show tha t [his] c ounse l’ s re pre s e nta t ion fe ll be low a n obje c tive s ta nda rd of

re a s ona ble ne s s.” Id. a t 688. W e e va lua te de fic i e nt pe rform a n c e a g a inst the b a c kdrop of “ a strong pre sum ption tha t c ounse l’ s c onduc t fa lls within the w i d e

ra nge of re a sona

ble profe ssiona l a ssista

nc e ,” a nd we re c ogniz e “ the wide l atitude

c ounse l m

ust ha v e in m a king ta c tic a l de c isions.” Id. a t 689. Gre sse r a sse rts t

ha t h is tria l c ounse l provide d de fic ie nt pe rform a nc e by fa iling to obje c t whe n both De la ne y a n d Frost offe re d te stim o n y th at vouc he d for FHG’ s c re dib i l i t y. Fa iling t o obje c t to ina dm issible e vide nc e c a n c onstitute -3-de fic ie nt pe rf o r m an ce if “ it is re a sona ble tha t the t

ria l c ourt would ha ve gra nte d” the obje c tion. Boy de v
. Brow n , 404 F.3d 1159, 1 173 (9th C ir. 2005) (inte rna l quota t ion m a rks a nd c ita

tion om i tte d); see also De lgadillo v
. W oodford , 527 F.3d 919, 928 (9th Ci r . 20 0 8 )

. “ [I] n Ore gon a witne ss . . . m a y not give a n opinion o n whe the r he be lie ve s a witne ss is te lling the truth.” State v
. Middle ton , 657 P.2d 1215, 1221 (Or. 1983).
W ith re spe c t to Del an ey, he r te stim ony c l e a rly c o m m e nte d on FHG’ s

c re d ibility

. De la

ne y opi n ed t h at “ I kne w t his little girl ha d be e n

– y ou c ould te l l she w a s te lling the truth. I m e a n she ’ s – y o u c ould just te ll.” This is the pa ra digm

o f i m p erm issible vouc hing te stim ony unde r Ore g o n la w. S e e id. A c c ordingly , t h e tria l c ourt a lm ost c e rta inly w ould ha ve susta ine d a n ob j e c tion to De la

ne y ’ s
te stim ony . This c onc lusion, howe ve r, doe s not e nd our inquiry

. B e c a use d e fe nse c ounse l posse sse s wide la titude to m a ke t act i cal de c isions during tria l, Stric k

land , 466 U.S. a t 689, we m ust de te rm ine if a ny stra te g ic c hoic e s would justify c ounse l’ s fa ilure to obje c t. An a ffida vit subm itte d by Gre sse r ’s t ria l

c ounse l a s pa

rt of the post-c onvic tion proc e e dings indic a te s t ha t one o f t he r ea sons he c hose not to obje c t to De la n e y’ s vouc hing te stim ony wa s tha t he “ did n ot wa nt to highlight tha

t sta t e m e n t for the jury

by obje c ting.”

-4-De la

ne y ’ s v ouc h ing te stim ony wa s e lic ite d a fte r the gove rnm e nt a ske d:

“ Oka y . Now, a fte r [FHG] told y ou w h at s h e d i d, wha t did y ou do? ” T h is que stion

c ould n ot ha v e re a sona

bly give n notic e tha t De la ne y wa s a

bout t o o p i n e o n FHG’ s

cr e dibility

. Ac c ordingly , the first opportunity for Gre sse r’ s tria l c ounse l to o b j ect

w o u l d h av e be e n a fte r De la n e y ha d utte re d he r vouc hing te stim ony . And whe the r
to obje c t to dam ag in g t es tim ony a t the risk o f dra wing the jury ’ s a tte ntion to it is a
ta c tic a l de c ision. Ac c ordingly , the fa ilure to obje c t to De la n e y ’ s v o u ching
te stim ony wa s a va lid stra te gic de c ision. Frost’ s te stim ony is a diffe re nt st o r y. Gre sse r a dva nc e s a substa

ntia l

ar g u m e nt tha t t

he fa ilure of his tria l c ounse l to obje c t to the two a bove -quo t ed
que stions a ddre sse d to Frost, whic h go d ire c tly to FHG’s c re dibility , c onstitute d de fic ie nt pe rform a nc e . W e ne e d not re solve t his que stion, h owe ve r, be c a use Gre sse r is una

ble to e sta

blish pre judic e . A de fe nd a nt is p re judic e d by his c ounse l’ s de fic ie nt per f

o rm a nc e whe n h e “ show[s] tha t the re is a re a sona b le p roba bility tha t, but for c ounse l’ s unprofe ssiona l e rrors, the re sult o f t h e p roc e e ding w ould ha ve be e n diffe re nt.” Id. a t

694.
T rue e nough, se v e ra l fa c tors we igh in fa vor of a finding of prej u d i ce. FHG’ s c re dibility wa s the c e n tra l issue a t trial an d , a fte r the sle e pove r a t Gre sse r’ s house , F H G p rovide d c onflic ting s ta te m e nts re ga rding whe the r Gre sse r pe ne tra te d -5-h er . M o r e ove r, Gre s se r te stifie d tha t he ne ve r m ole ste d FHG, a nd his the ne stra nge d wif e p r o vi ded a libi te stim ony . Fina lly , the j ury ’ s ve rdic t to c onvic t wa s
not una nim ous. Othe r fa c t ors, h owe ve r, strongly we igh a ga inst a findi n g of p re judic e . The

sum tota l of Frost’ s re fe re nc e to FHG’ s c re dibility w a s c onta ine d in five words of

re sponse to t

wo que stions during a m

ulti-da y t ria l in whic h ove r a doz e n witne sse s
te stifie d. B e c a

use the brie f e xc ha

n g e co m p rise d only a pa ssing re fe re nc e a m ong a host of othe r te stim o n y, F r os t ’s re sponse like ly ha d little i m pa c t on the jury ’ s

ove ra l l a sse ssm e nt o f FHG’ s c re dibility

. Th is is e spe c ia lly so be c a use the jury h a d the opportunity to e v a lua te d i re c tly both FHG’ s a nd Gre sse r’ s c re dibility during the i r l i ve t estim ony in c ourt. Furthe r, the jury he a rd FHG’ s vide ota pe d inte rvie w with a soc ia l worke r, whic h was r eco r d ed within se ve ra l we e ks of the a buse , a nd i t he a rd from

othe r witne sse s a s to wha t FHG ha d told the m . The jury t he re fore ha d a m

ple oppor tunity to a sse ss the c onsiste n c y of FHG’ s
sta te m e nts a t tria l with t

hose she pre viou s l y provide d to othe rs. Although he r
sta te m e nts to the othe r witne sse s we re not c o m p l et e ly c onsiste nt, t

he re wa s

c onsiste n c y re ga

rd i n g a ke y fa c t c e ntra l to the c a se , i .e ., t ha t FHG e xpe rie nc e d pa in

a nd b l e e ding a s a re sult Gre sse r’ s a lle ge d a buse

. W e the re fore c onc lude tha t the re

-6-is no re a s ona ble p roba bility th at , b ut for Frost’ s vouc hing te stim o n y , the outc om e of Gre sse r’ s tria l would ha ve be e n diffe re nt. For a ll of the a

bove re a sons, W E A FFIRM

.

-7-