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

GAR C IA, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. JAM ES R OB ER TSON, W arde n,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 14-55753 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00659-PA-R

Z
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2019 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, FISHER , *** and C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Arthur Ga

rc ia a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his 28 U.S.C
. § 2254 pe tition c ha lle n g ing his c o nvic tion for c onspira c y to c om m it m urde r. B e c a

use the 

# FIL ED AUG 20 2019 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 D. M ic h a e l Fishe r, Unite d Stat e s C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Third C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.pa

rtie s are fam ilia

r with thefa c ts, we re pe at the m only a s ne c e ssa

ry to re solve this
a ppe a l. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a

n d our re vie w is gove rne d by the Antite rrorism

and Effe c t ive De ath Pe na lty Ac t of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Sta

t. 1214. W e a ffirm
. 1. Garc ia first a

rgue s tha t C a lifornia

De pa rtm e nt of Justic e Spe c i a l Age nt Sc ott B arke r’ s te stim ony wa s so pre

judic ia l tha

t it deprive d him

of a fa ir tria l , a nd tha t the C a l ifornia

C ourt of Appe a l m a de an unre a sona ble de te rm ination of the fa c ts in c onc luding otherwise
. On dire c t a p pe a l, the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l de te rm i n e d tha

t a ny pre judic e wa s e ffe c tive ly

c ure d by the tria l c ourt’ s lim iting instruc tion a

n d tha t the tria l c ourt did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing a
m otion for a

m i stria l. Ga

rc ia argue s tha

t the C a lifornia

C o urt of Appe a l se v e re ly unde rstate d the im

pa c t of Age nt B arke r’ s te stim ony , a nd thus m a de an unre a s ona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c ts. As a n initia l m atte r, the State argue s tha t the la w of the c a se doc trine pre c lude s our c onside ration of them e rits of this c la im . In a prior a nd se pa rate c ivil ha be a s proc e e ding, a

nothe r pane l of our c ourt de n ie d a c o-de fe nda

nt’ s ide ntic a l
c la im a bout Age nt B a

rke r’ s te stim ony . Se e Polanc o v . Duc art , 643 F. App’ x 628, 629–30 (9th C ir. 2016). Thela w of the c a se doc t

rine a pplie s whe n “ t

he a ppe a l of
one c o-de fe nda

nt is de c ide d prior to thea p pe a l of the othe r c o-de fe nda nt, if both
2we re c onvic te d at the sa m e tria l .” Unite d State

s v . Sc haff

, 948 F.2d 501, 506 (9th C ir. 1991) (a

na ly z ing a

dire c t a ppe a l). It follows tha

t “ [t] he la w of the c a s e doc trine sta

te s tha t the de c ision of a

n a ppe lla te c ourt on a

le g a l issuem

ust be followe d in a ll subse que nt proc e e dings in the sa m e c a s e .” Alaimalo v
. Unite d State s , 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th C ir. 2011). He re , Ga rc ia ’ s c ivil ha

be a s proc e e ding is se

pa rate from his c o-de fe nda

nt’ s ha be a s proc e e ding. Thela

w of the
c a se doc trine the re fore doe s not a pply be c a use Ga rc ia ’ s ha be a s a ppe a l is not the

“ sam e c a se ” a s his c o-de fe nda nt’ s ha be a s a ppe a l. On the m e rits, we de ny

Ga rc ia ’ s first c la im

be c a use we c onc lude tha

t the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s de te rm ination wa s re a sona ble . “ [A] fe de ra l c ourt
m ay not se c ond-gue ss a

sta t e c ourt’ s fa c t-finding proc e s s unle ss, a fte r re vie w of the s tat e -c ourt re c o rd, it de te rm ine s tha t the sta te c ourt wa s not m e re ly

wrong, but
a c tua lly unre a sona

ble .” Tay lor v . Maddox , 366 F.3d 992, 999 (9th C ir. 2004),
ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Murray v . Sc hriro , 745 F.3d 984, 999–1000 (9th C ir. 2014). The bre vity

of Age nt B arke r’ s te stim ony , the le ngth of tim e be twe e n the d e fe nda

nts’ inc arc e ration a

n d the vic t im ’ s de ath, a

nd the tria l c ourt’ s pa rtic u la rly c onsc ie ntious c urative instruc tion support the sta te c ourt’ s de nia l of Garc ia ’ s c la im . W e “ pre sum e tha t a jury will follow a

n instruc tion to disre ga

rd ina d m issiblee vide nc e ina dve rte ntly pre se nte d to it, unle ss the re is a n 3‘ o ve rwhe lm ing proba bility ’ tha t the jury will be una

ble to follow the

c ourt’ s instruc tions, a

nd a strong like lihood tha

t the e ffe c t of the e v ide nc e would be

‘ d e v a sta ting’ to the de fe n d ant.” Gre e r v . Mille r , 483 U.S. 756, 766 n.8 (1987) (c ita tion omitte d). Give n the fore going fa c ts, we c onc lude tha t the re wa s not a

n

“ ove rwhe lm ing proba

bility ” tha t the jury c ould not a

bide by the tria l c ourt’ s c are fully -worde d

lim iting instruc tion, de spite the e vide nc e tha t the de fe nda

nts we re pa rt of a ga ng tha t dire c t e d c rim ina l a c tivity from within prisons. 2. Garc ia ne x t a

rgue s tha t the prose c utor c om

m itte d Griffin e rror during
re butta l a rgum e nt be c a

u se he c om

m e nte d on the de fe nda

nts’ sile n c e a fte r the ir
arre sts. Se e Griffin v . C

alifornia , 380 U.S. 609 (1965). The tria l c ourt de nie d the de fe nse m otion for a

m istria l, instruc te d the jury to disre ga

rd the re m arks on the de fe nda nts’ sile nc e , a

nd re m inde d the jury

tha t the de fe nda

nts ha d a c onstitutiona

l right not to be

c om pe lle d to te stify . Ga

rc ia argue s tha

t be c a use the Griffin e rror wa s a ppa re nt, a ppe lla te c ounse l’ s fa ilure to ra ise the issue on dire c t a ppe a l
c onstitute d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. The C a lifornia Supre m e C o urt
sum m arily de nie d this ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

without c om

m e nt or
c ita tion. To pre va i l on his c la im

for ha be a s re lie f, Garc ia

m ust show tha

t the C a lifornia Supre m e C o urt’ s sum

m ary de n i a l wa s a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of
4Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Se e Harrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011) (“ Whe re a sta te c ourt’ s de c ision is unac c om pa nie d by an e xpla nation, theha

be a s pe titione r’ s burde n still m ust be m e t by

showing there wa s no re a sona

ble ba sis for thesta

te c ourt to de ny

re lie f.” ). To show ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l, a

de fe nda nt m u st de m onstra

te tha t his c o unse l’ s c onduc t fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a sona

b le ne ss, a nd tha t the re wa s a re a s ona

ble proba b ility tha t, but for c ounse l’ s e rrors, the re s ult of theproc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re nt. Se e Stric k land, 466 U.S. a

t 688, 694. As to Ga

rc ia ’ s c la i m

tha t
a ppe lla te c o unse l wa s ine ffe c tive for fa iling to raise Griffin e rror, due proc e ss

“ prohibits a

prose c utor from

c om m e nting on a

de fe nda nt’ s de c ision not to te stify [,] ” and “ a

prose c utor’ s indire c t c om m e nt viola

te s Griffin only

if it is
m anife s tly

inte nde d to c a ll a

tte ntion to the

de fe n da nt’ s fa ilure to te stify , or is of
suc h a c h ara c te r that the jury

would na tura lly and ne c e ssa

rily ta ke it to bea c om m e nt on thefa ilure to te stify .” Hov e y v . Ay e rs , 458 F.3d 892, 912 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). This ty

pe of e rror warrants re ve rsa l whe re the prose c utor’ s “ c o m m e nt is e xte nsive , whe re an infe re nc e of guilt from sile nc e is stre sse d to thejury a s a ba sis for thec o nvic tion, a nd whe re the re is
e vide nc e tha

t c ould ha ve supporte d a c quitta l.” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d).
5W e c onc lude tha t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt’ s de c i sion to de ny Ga rc ia ’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la i m

wa s re a sona

ble . The tra

nsc ript doe s not show tha t the prose c utor dire c tly

c om m e nte d on Ga

rc i a ’ s de c ision not to te stify , nor doe s it show tha

t he inte nde d to c a ll a

tte ntion to this de c i sion. Eve n a ssum ing
a Griffin e rror oc c urre d, it is re a sona ble to c onc lude tha

t the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss be c a use : (1) the prose c utor’ s re m ark re lat ing to de fe nda nts’ sile nc e wa s brie f; (2) the p rose c utor did not stre ss de fe nda nts’ sile nc e a s a

ba sis for the c onvic t ion be c a use he wa s e m

pha siz ing thede fe nda

nts’ bonds; a

n d (3) the jury

wa s pre se nte d with e vide nc e of wire ta

ppe d c onve rsat ions involving Ga rc i a , whic h Age nt B arke r (who ha d e xte nsive e xpe rie n c e working with ga n g re l ate d c rim e s ) inte rpre te d a s showing a

n atte m pt on thevic t im ’ s life
. Se e Hov e y , 458 F.3d a

t 912. M ore ove r, the t ria l c ourt’ s c are ful instruc tion— whic h we pre sum e the jury followe d, Gre e r , 483 U.S. a

t 766 n.8—

unde rsc ore s tha

t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt c ould ha

ve re a s ona bly de te rm ine d

tha t a ny Griffin e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. The re fore , the C a lifornia Supre m e C o urt’ s de c ision wa s not a n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of Stric k land be c a u se it is re a sona

ble to c onc lude tha

t a ppe lla te c ounse l wa s not ine ffe c tive for fa iling to raise a m e ritle ss c la im
. AFFIRM E D.

6