T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, * re s ju d ica ta, a n dc o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ay 24, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT A L A M I E L M A N S O U R I, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 07- 6029 J U S T IN J O N E S , R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D . C. N o. CI V - 06 - 06 69 - F) ( W . D . O kl ahoma)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efor e B R I S C O E , E B E L , andM c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. A l ami E l M ans our i ( “El M ans our i ”) , an O kl ahoma st at e pr i s onerappear i ng pr o s e, se e k s a c e rtific a te o f

ap p e a lab ili ty(“ C O A ” ) to ap p e a l th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s pet i t i on. B ecaus e El M ans our i fai l s t o m ake “ a s ubs t ant i al s h o wi n g o f

th e d e n i a l o f

a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t , ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) , we d e n yth e CO A an dd ism iss th e m att er. A j uryconvi ct ed El M ans our i of m ul t i pl e s t at e l aw offe ns es , i ncl udi ng among other s att empt ed r obbery , as s aul tand batt ery , and ki dnappi ng, ar i s i ng fr om a homei nvas i on att empt ed r obberyi n N ovemberof 2001. H e r ece i ved a s ent ence of overoneB radyv. M ary l and , 37 3 U . S . 83 , 87 (1963 ). T he p rosecut i on viol at es a 1 defe ndant ’ s due pr oces s r i ght s w hen i tfai l s t o di s cl os e evi dence favor abl e t o the d e f e n d a n t th a t w a s m a te ri a l to e ith e r g u ilt o r p u n is h m e n t. I d . E l M a n s o u r i r a i s e dg r o u n d s f i v e a n ds i x o n d i r e c tap p e a l o f h i s c o n v i c t i o n . He 2 rai sed grou nd s one thr ou gh fou r forthe fir stt i m e i n st at e po st -convict i on proceed i ng s.

- 2- h u n d r e dy e a r s ’ i mp r i s o n me n t . ElM a n s o u r i ap p e a l e dh i s c o n v i c t i o n t o th e Ok l a h o ma C o u rt o f C rim in a l A p p e a ls (“ O C C A ” ). T h e O C C A re v e rse dh is c o n v ictio n in p a rt, di s m i s s i ng tw o count s on gr ounds of doubl e puni s hm ent , and af fi rm ed hi s r emai ni ng convi ct i ons . E l M ans our i then s oughtaddi t i onal s t at e pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef, w hi ch w as d e n i e db yth e s t a t e d i s tr i c tc o u rta n da f f i rme db yth e OC CA . E l M ans our i fi l ed a pe t i t i on forfede r al habea s r el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254, w h ich ra ise dsix g ro u n d s f o r re lief , inc lu d in g : (1 ) in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

ap p e llate couns el ; ( 2) i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el ; ( 3) due pr oces s vi ol at i ons bas ed on an i n- courti dent i fi cat i on; ( 4) a B r ady vi ol at i on r es ul t i ng fr om the s t at e’ s w i thhol di ng of an 1 excu l patoryvideot ape; ( 5) a dou ble j eop ardyviol at i on ; and (6) a C on front at i on C l ause v iolati o n relati n g to h ea rsaystat em en ts ad m itted a t tri al. T h e f ed era l distri ct co u rt 2 d e n ied E l M a n so u ri’s h ab e a s p e tit io n o n Ja n u a ry3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , af tera d o p tin g th e m a g istra te jud g e’s rep o rtan drec o m m en d ati o n (“R & R ”). O n F eb rua ry2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , the d istri ct co u rt deni ed El M ans our i a C O A t o appea l the deni al of hi s habea s pet i t i on. T hi s courtcan i s s ue a CO A onl y“i f the appl i canthas m ade as ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . “A pet i t i oners at i s fi es thi s s t andar d bydemonstr at i ng thatj ur i s t s of r eas on coul d di s agr ee w i th the di s tr i ct- 3-

court ’ s r es ol ut i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orthatj ur i s t s coul d conclude the i s s ues pr es ent ed ar e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d further . ” M i l l er - E l v. C ockr el l , 537 U . S. 322, 327 ( 2003) . T hi s det erm i nat i on “r equi r es an overvi ew of the c l a i ms i n th e h ab e a s p e t i t i o n a n da g e n e r a l a s s e s s me n to f th e i rme r i t s . ” I d . a t3 3 6 . El M ansou ri i s not r equ i red t o p rove the m eri t s of his case, bu the m ustno nethel ess demonstr at e “s om ethi ng m or e than the abs ence of fr i vol i tyorthe exi s t ence of m er e good f a ith ” o n h is p a rt . Id . a t 3 3 8 (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). U nder§ 2254, thi s courtm aygr anta C O A on a cl ai m thatw as adj udi cat ed on the m er i t s i n s t at e courtonl yi f the s t at e court ’ s deci s i on “w as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C ourtof the U ni t ed St at es ” or“w as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te din th e S ta te c o u rtp ro c e e d in g s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254( d) ( 1) - ( 2) . A ft ercar efulr evi ew of El M ans our i ’ s appl i cat i on, the dec i s i ons of the O C C A , the magi s tr at e j udge’ s R & R , the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der , and the mat er i al port i ons o f th e re c o rd , w e c o n c lu d e th a t E l M a n so u ri’s c laim s a re w ith o u t m e rit. E l M a n so u ri’s f

irst g ro u n df

o r re lief c laim s h e w a s d e p riv e do f h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l b e c a u se h is a p p e llate c o u n se l f a iled to r ai s e cl ai m s of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el on di r ectappea l . H i s s econd gr ound a ss e rts th a t h is tria l co u n se l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to : (1 ) c h a llen g e th e jo in d e r o f h is offe ns es pur s uantt o O KLA . S TAT . A NN . t i t . 22, § 404 ( 2003) ; ( 2) r eques ta phot o- l i neup p rio r to trial a n do b

jec t to th e in -c o u rt id e n tific a tio n o f E l M a n so u ri; an d(3 ) in v e stig a te466 U . S. 668, 687 ( 1984) . T o pr evai l on an i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el 3 cl ai m , a pet i t i onerm us tdemonstr at e thathi s couns el ’ s per form ance w as defi ci entand pr ej udi ced hi s defe ns e. I d. C ouns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on m us tfal l bel ow “an obj ect i ve s ta n d a rd o f

re a s o n ab le n e s s .” Id . a t 6 8 8 .

- 4- th e c o n te n ts o f

a v id e o tap e a n da lle g e a B ra d yv io la tio n b yth e S ta te . W h e re , a s h e re , a pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m of appe l l at e i neff ect i venes s i s bas ed on couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e a part i cul ari s s ue, the courtm us tcons i derthe mer i t s of the omi tt ed i s s ue. C ar gl e v. M ul l i n, 3 1 7 F .3 d1 1 9 6 , 1 2 0 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). If th e o m itt e diss u e is m e ritles s, “ its o m iss io n w ill n o t con sti tute d ef

ici en t perf

o rm an ce . ” Id . B ec au se th e O C C A co n side red E l M an so u ri ’s cl ai m s of i neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of appe l l at e couns el on the mer i t s and appl i ed the pr oper stan d ard arti cu lat ed in S tr icklan dv . W ash ing ton , w e w il l determ ine w h ethe r th e O C C A ’s 3 d e c is io n w a s c o n tr a ry to o r a n u n re a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e df

e d e ra l la w . E l M ans our i al l eged thr ee e rr or s bytr i al couns el thathe cl ai m s appel l at e couns el shou l d h ave rai sed on dir ectapp eal . A con si derat i on of the m eri t s of each of these a l l e g e dtr i a l c o u n s e l e rr o r s r e v e a l s th a tth e yl a c kme r i t . F i r s t , i n 1 9 6 8 th e Ok l a h o ma L egi s l atur e pas s ed O KLA . S TAT . A NN . t i t . 22, § 436, w hi ch r epea l ed § 404, ther eby perm i tt i ng the “joi nd er of separat el ypu nis hab l e off enses . . . i f the sepa rat e off enses ari se outof one c r i m i nal actortr ans act i on, orar e partof a s er i es of cr i m i nal act s or tr ans act i on. ” G l as s v. St at e, 701 P. 2d 765, 768 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1985) . B ecaus e “a courtm us ti ndul ge a s tr ong pr es um pt i on thatcouns el ’ s conductfal l s w i thi n the w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr ofes s i onal as s i s t ance , ” and El M ans our i ’ s tr i al couns el ’ s deci s i on no tt o reque sta pre- tri al ph otographic l i neu p an d to cond uct a tho rough cross -W e w illa lso “ o v e rlo o kp ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt i n ra re c a se s w h e n th e f a ilu re to 4 cons i dera pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s w oul d pr oduce a‘ fundament al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce, ’ on the gr ound thatthe pet i t i oneri s actual l yi nnocentof the char ged cr i m e. ” El l i s , 302 F. 3d a t 1 1 8 6 n .1 . H o w e v e r, E l M a n s o u ri d o e s n o t m a k e th is a rg u m e n t.

- 5- ex am ination o f th e ide n ti fy ing w itn ess ra ther tha n ch all en g e the iden ti fica ti o n d ir ec tl yare act i ons that“mi ghtbe cons i der ed s ound tr i al s tr at egy , ” thi s cl ai m al s o fai l s . Str i ckl and, 466 U . S. at689. Fi nal l y , E l M ans our i fai l ed t o es t abl i s h thatthe vi deot ape i n ques t i on actual l yexi s t s , and eve n as s um i ng i tdoes , thatthe r es ul tof hi s tr i al w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . B ecaus e El M ans our i ’ s tr i al couns el w as notdefi ci ent , hi s appel l at e couns el w as noti neff

ect i ve forfai l i ng t o r ai s e thes e cl ai m s on di r ectappea l and hi s fi r s tand s e c o n dg ro u n d s f

o r r e lie f a re w ith o u t m e ri t. In h is th ir dg rou n dfo r reli ef , E l M an so u ri claim s h is du e p roc ess righ ts w ere v i o l a t e da s a r e s u l to f

th e i n - c o u rti d e n t i f

i c a t i o n b yth e v i c t i m- wi tn e s s . Be c a u s e El M ans our i r ai s ed thi s cl ai m forthe fi r s tt i m e i n s t at e pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs , the O C C A det erm i ned thatthe cl ai m w as pr ocedur al l ybarr ed pur s uantt o O KLA . S TAT . A NN . tit . 2 2 , § 1 0 8 6 (2 0 0 3 ) a n da f f irm e dd e n ial o f

p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief

o n th is c laim . T h is courthas det erm i ned that§ 1086 i s an i ndepende ntand ade quat e gr ound fordeny i ng habea s r el i ef and ther efor e w e cannotr evi ew thi s cl ai m unl es s E l M ans our i can demonstr at e both “‘ caus e forthe def aul tand ac tual pr ej udi ce a s a r es ul tof the al l eged vi ol at i on of fe der al l aw . ’ ” E l l i s v. H ar gett , 302 F. 3d 1182, 1186 ( 10th C i r . 2002) 4 (q u o tin g C o le m a n v . T h o m p s o n , 5 0 1 U .S . 7 2 2 , 7 5 0 (1 9 9 1 )) . T he O C C A r ecogni zed thatE l M ans our i as s ert ed i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of- 6-

ap p ell ate c o u n sel as the ca u se f o r his p roc ed u ral de fa u lt , b u t determ ined that E l M an so u ri f a i l e dt o s h o w th a th i s ap p e l l a t e c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f o rma n c e wa s d e f

i c i e n to rth a tth e o u t c o me of hi s tr i al and appe al w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . B ecaus e w e have al r eadydet erm i ned thatE l M ans our i ’ s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s ar e w i thoutm er i t , he has f a i l e dt o o v e r c o me p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u l to n th i s c l a i m a n dwe c a n n o tr e v i e w i t . El M ans our i ’ s fourth gr ound forr el i ef a s s ert s a s t and al one B r adycl ai m i n r egar ds t o the al l egedl yexculpat oryvi deot ape. B ecaus e w e have al r eadydet erm i ned, i n the cont extof h i s e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f

c o u n s e l c l a i ms , th a tE l M a n s o u r i ’ s Br a d yc l a i m h a s n o me r i t , we conclude thatthe pet i t i oner ’ s fourth gr ound forr el i ef w as pr oper l ydeni ed. In g ro u n df

iv e , E l M a n so u ri c laim s th a t h is m u ltip le c o n v ictio n s v io late th e D o u b le J eopar dyC l aus e of the Fi fth A m endment . E l M ans our i as s ert ed thi s cl ai m on di r ect ap p e a l an dth e O C C A re v e rse dh is c o n v ictio n in p a rt a n dd ism iss e dtw o o f th e c o u n ts agai ns thi m ( C ount s 7 and 12) , butaff i rm ed the r es tof the convi ct i ons . I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, E l M ans our i cl ai m s hi s r emai ni ng convi ct i ons for“ki dnappi ng, as s aul t , and att empt ed r obberycr i m es ” vi ol at e doubl e j eopar dy . See B r i ef i n Supportof Pet i t i on for W ri tof H abeas C orpus, D oc. 2 at 15. T he O C C A determ i ned that other than C ou nts 2 a n d7 , n o n e o f

th e o th e r c o u n ts a g a in st E l M a n so u ri c o n stitu ted d o u b le je o p a rd yo r d o u b le p u n is h m e n t. Th e Do u b l e J e o p a r d yCl a u s e p r o t e c t s a g a i n s tmu l t i p l e p u n i s h me n t s f o rth e s a me o ff en se. L u ce ro v . K erb y , 1 3 3 F . 3 d1 2 9 9 , 1 3 1 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). B ec au se th e re co rd sh o w s th a t E l M a n so u ri’s c o n v ictio n f o r a ttem p ted ro b b e ryis n o t su b jec t to a d o u b le- 7-

jeop ard ych all en g e, his ch all en g e is l im it ed to h is co n v ict ion s fo r A ssau ltan dB att ery w i th a D ang erous W eapo n (C ou nt 10) and K i dn app i ng for E xtort i on (C ou nt 11) agai nst the s ame vi ct i m . B ecaus e the as s aul tand ki dnappi ng offe ns es r equi r e di ffe r entfac tual e le m e n ts o f

p ro o f , E l M a n s o u ri ’s c o n v ic tio n s d o n o t v io la te th e D o u b le J e o p a rd yC la u s e . I d . ( q u o t i n g Bl o c kb u r g e rv . Un i t e dS t a t e s , 2 8 4 U. S . 2 9 9 , 3 0 4 ( 1 9 3 2 ) ( “ [ W ] h e r e th e s a me actortr ans act i on cons t i tut es a vi ol at i on of tw o s t atut orypr ovi s i ons , the t es tt o be appl i ed t o det erm i ne w hetherther e ar e tw o offe ns es oronl yone i s w hethereac h pr ovi s i on re q u ir e s p ro o f

o f a n a d d itio n a l f

a c t w h ic h th e o th e r d o e s n o t.” )) . E l M an so u ri also arg u es th at his co n v ict ion s v iolate O k laho m a’s statutory p ro h ib iti o n a g a in st d o u b le p u n ish m e n t, bu t b e c a u se th is in v o lv e s p u re lya m a tter o f sta te l aw , i tcannots erve as gr ounds forfede r al habea s r el i ef. See Est el l e v. M cG ui r e, 502 U . S. 62, 67- 68 ( 1991) ( “[I ] ti s notthe pr ovi nce of a fe der al habea s courtt o r eexa m i ne s t at e- courtdet erm i nat i ons on s t at e- l aw ques t i ons . I n conduct i ng habea s r evi ew , a fe der al courti s l i m i t ed t o deci di ng w hethera convi ct i on vi ol at ed the C ons t i tut i on, l aw s , or tr e a tie s o f

th e U n ite dS ta te s .” ). Fi nal l y , i n hi s s i xth gr ound forr el i ef, E l M ans our i cl ai m s thathi s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e and due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen the tr i al courtperm i tt ed ce rt ai n hear s ay t es t i m onyfr om a St at e w i tnes s . T he O C C A cons i der ed thi s ar gum enton di r ectappea l and con cl ud ed thatthis hearsayt est i m on yviol at ed E l M ansou ri ’s C on front at i on C l ause r i ght s , butthatthi s err orw as harm l es s . T he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e bar s the i ntr oduct i on of t es t i m oni al hear s ayagai ns ta cr i m i nal defe ndant , unl es s the dec l ar anti s unavai l abl e andE l M ans our i ’ s cl ai m w oul d fai l even i f w e appl i ed de novo r evi ew becaus e the 5 s t at ement s ati s s ue do notvi ol at e C r aw for d.

- 8- the ac cus ed has had a pr i oropportuni tyt o cr os s - exami ne the dec l ar ant . C r aw for d v. W a sh in g to n , 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 , 5 3 -5 4 (2 0 0 4 ). B e c a u se th e O C C A d idn o t ex p re ss lyap p ly C raw fo rd in rea ch ing it s d ec isi o n o r discu ss w h ethe r th e statem en ts atissue w ere t e s t i mo n i a l i n n a tu r e , we wi l l c o n d u c ta n i n d e p e n d e n tr e v i e w o f th i s i s s u e u n d e rwh i c h we w i l l r efus e “r el i ef unl es s the s t at e court ’ s r es ul ti s l egal l yorfac tual l yunr eas onabl e. ” A y c o x v . L ytle, 1 9 6 F .3 d1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (n o tin g th a t in d e p e n d e n t re v iew is m o re d ef ere n ti al th an d e n o v o rev iew b ec au se w e o w e “ d ef ere n ce to the stat e c o u rt ’s res ult , even i f i t s r easoning is no texp res sl yst at ed”) ( em ph asi s i n o ri ginal ). B ecause 5 none of the s t at ement s E l M ans our i compl ai ns of qual i fyas t es t i m oni al hear s ayoffe r ed a g a in st h im u n d e r C ra w f o rd a n dth e O C C A ’s d e term in a tio n o n th is iss u e w a s n o t leg a lly o r f a c tu a lly u n re a s o n ab le , th is g ro u n df o r r e lie f a ls o f a ils . E l M ans our i cl ai m s thatthe admi s s i on of thes e hear s ays t at ement s vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s t o a funda m ent al l yfai rtr i al and r eques t s an evi dent i aryhear i ng. E ven as s um i ng ther e w as s om e mer i tt o hi s due pr oces s ar gum ent , the evi dence pr es ent ed agai ns tE l M ans our i attr i al i s s uffi ci entt o r enderthe vi ol at i on harm l es s . See Patt on v. M ul l i n, 425 F. 3d 788, 800 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( not i ng that“i n a habe as pr ocee di ng, anytr i al err or s w i l l be dee m ed harm l es s unl es s theyhave as ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous eff ector i n f l u e n c e i n d e t e rmi n i n g th e v e r d i c t ” ) . Be c a u s e n o n e o f h i s c l a i ms h a v e me r i t , El M ans our i i s notent i t l ed t o an evi dent i aryhear i ng. See A nder s on v. A tt orneyG en. of- 9-

K a n ., 4 2 5 F .3 d8 5 3 , 8 5 8 -5 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (n o tin g th a t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g is u n n e c e s s a ry if

th e c la im c a n b e re s o lv e do n re c o rd ). W e D E N Y th e C O A a n dD IS M IS S th e m a tte r. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge