N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LUIS ALB ER TO M AR TINEZ, Pe titioner - Appe lla nt, v. JOE M C GR

ATH; ATTOR

NEY GENER AL FOR THE STATE OF C ALIFOR

NIA, R

e sponde nt s - Appe lle e s . No. 12-15854 D.C . No. 2:02-c v-00159-KJM GGH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Kim be rly J. M ue lle r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 14, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , RIPPLE ** , a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titioner-Appe lla

nt Luis Alberto M artine z , a C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a ppe a ls thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s c orpus pe tition 

# FIL ED AUG 01 2013 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. ** The Honora

ble Ke nne th F. Ripple , Se nior Unite d State s C irc uit Judge for the Se ve nth C i rc uit, sitting by de signa tion.c ha lle nging his jury c onvic tions of m

urde r, atte m

pte d m urde r, a nd stre e t te rrorism . W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of re l ie f. He c la im s juror misc onduc t a nd ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l in fa iling to inve stiga te suc h m isc onduc t. The distric t c ourt rule d tha t his c la im s we re proc e d ura lly de fa

ulte d. Unde r the inte rve ning de c ision in Martine z v . Ry an , 132 S. C t. 1309 (2012), the

proc e dura l de fa

ult of Pe titione r’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e c la im m ay be e xc use d

if he c an e sta

blish tha t his post-c onvic tion c o unse l re nde re d c onstitutiona

lly ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e , a nd tha t his underly ing c la im

of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e at tria l is substa

ntia l. Martine

z , 132 S. C t. at 1320. W e a ssum e without de c iding tha

t Martine z v . Ry an a

pplie s to sta

t e post-c onvic tion proc e e dings in C a lifornia . Se eTre v i no v . Thale r , 133 S. C t . 1911 (2013). Evide nc e of what jurors said to e a c h othe r is not a dm issible . Fe d. R . Evid. 606(b). Our pre vious disposition in this c a s e , M artine z v . Mc Grath , 391 Fe d. App’ x 596 (9th C i r. 2010), re c ogniz e d tha t , but re m a

n de d be c a use the re m ay

have be e n som e e xtrinsic e vide n c e to support Pe titione r’ s c la im s of juror misc onduc t and ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e for fa iling to inve stiga te the a lle ge d m isc onduc t. A re vie w of the full re c o rd now re ve a ls tha t the re wa s no e xtrinsic e vide nc e , a nd Pe titioner’ s c la im

of juror m isc onduc t c o nc e rns only what wa s disc usse d during

2de libe rat ions. Pe titioner’ s unde rly ing c la im of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of tria l c ounse l, the re fore , ha s no substa nc e . AFFIRM ED.

3M artine zv. M c Grath, 12-15854

RIPPLE, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in thejudgm e nt: The la w of the c a se doc trine justifie s the m a j ority ’ s re lia

nc e on Fe de ra l R

ule of Evide nc e 606(b). Howe v e r, we re we de c iding this m atte r without the c onstra ints im

pose d upon us by

the e arlie r pane l de c ision in this c a s e , we would have to a ddre ss whe the r that rule is re a l ly a s dispositive

a s the e arlie r pane l thought it wa s. R ule 606 a pplie s only

to thec onduc t of litiga

tion in Unite d State s c ourts. He re , in thec onte xt of a

n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c l a im

ra ise d on ha

be a s re vie w, it is im

porta nt tha t the unde rly ing proc e e ding took plac e in thec ourts of C a lifornia . C a lifornia

doe s not follow the

fe d e ra l rule with re spe c t

to the a dm ission of juror sta

te m e nts during de libe rations. In C a lifornia , whe n a pa rty c ha lle nge s the va lidity

of a jury ve rdic t, the C a lifornia

R ule s \ of Evide n c e a llow c onside ration of sta

te m e nts, c onduc t a

n d e ve nts oc c urring during de libe rat ions, but not e vide nc e a s to how those sta te m e nts or e v e nts influe nc e d a juror. C a l. Evid. C ode § 1150(a). B y

c ontra st, theFe d e ra l R

ule s of Evide nc e do not a llow te stim ony a s to sta te m e nts m a de during de libe rations. He re , whe re sta

te la w give s the de fe nda

nt m ore latitudein im

pe a c hing a

jury ve rdic t tha

n ava ila ble unde r fe de ra l la

w, the a de qua c y

of c o unse l m

ust be m e a sure d by whe the r c ounse l a de quate ly prote c te d his c l ie nt’ s m ore prote c t ive sta te rights. At le a st in thec onte xt he re --an ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c l a im

ba se d on 

# FIL ED AUG 01 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALSproc e e dings in a C a l ifornia sta te c ourt--the C a l ifornia R ule s of Evide nc e c ontrols the i nquiry

into thea de qua c y

of c ounse l’ s c onduc t. De spite m

y re spe c tful disagre e m e nt a bout re lia n c e on R ule 606(b), I be lie ve that the e vide nc e of re c ord doe s not e sta blish tha t the de fe nda

nt wa s pre judic e d by any shortc om ing of c ounse l. Ac c ordingly , I join in the a ffirm anc e of the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt.

2