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

VINC ENT THIEC KE, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. SC OTT M . KER

NAN, W arde n, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 10-17594 D.C . No. 05:06-c v-0161 JF/HR

L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je re m y Foge l, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 21, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

nd PAEZ, C irc u it Judge s, a nd AM ON, ** Distric t

Judge
. Following a

jury tria l, Fre de ric k Thie c ke wa s found guilty in sta te c ourt of two c ounts of first-de gre e m urde r of his m othe r Libby Gre e n a nd his ste pfathe r De nny Gre e n a nd wa s se nte nc e d to lifeim prisonm e nt. Thie c ke pre se n te d a



# F IL ED
J UN 06 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Honora

ble C arol B a gle y

Am on, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.dim inishe d c a pa c ity de fe nse at tria l, a

rguing tha

t he la c ke d the re q

u isite m e nta l sta te for first-de gre e m

urde r. He a

p pe a le d his c onvic tions to the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l, whic h a ffirm e d una nim ously
. Thie c ke subse que ntly file d a fe de ra l pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus in whic h he argue d tha t the sta t e tria l c ourt viola te d his due proc e ss right to pre se nt a de fe nse by : (1) lim iting thee xte nt to whic h Dr. Da

vid Foste r, the de fe nse ’ s e xpe rt witne ss, c ould re late he arsay
e vide nc e to the jury

while a llowing the

prose c ution gre ate r latitudeto e lic it he arsay
on c ross-e xam i nation; (2) e x c luding e v ide nc e of the vic t im s’ ba c kground, life sty l e , and prior ba d a c ts; a

nd (3) e xc luding e vide nc e of Thie c ke ’ s ne gle c t a nd a b use by the v ic tim s. Apply ing the de fe re ntia l sta nda rd of re v ie w e sta

blishe d by

the Antite rrorism

and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t (“ AEDPA” ), the distric t c o urt dism isse d Thie c ke ’ s ha

be a s pe tition. Thie c ke now a ppe a ls tha

t de c i sion. W e
re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus de novo, Visc iotti v . Marte l , 839 F.3d 845, 856 (9th C ir. 2016), a nd we a ffirm
. AEDPA “ sha

rply lim its the c irc um sta

nc e s in whic h a

fe d e ra l c ourt m ay

issue
a writ of ha

be a s c orpus to a

sta te prisone r whose c l a im

wa s ‘ a djudic ate d on the
m e rits in Sta

t e c ourt proc e e d ings.’ ” J

ohnson v . W

i lliams , 133 S.C t. 1088, 1094 (2013) (quoting 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)). He re , Thie c ke c onte n ds the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l did not adjudic ate his c onstitutiona l c la im s on the m e rits. “ Whe n
2a

fe d e ra l c la im

ha s be e n pre se nte d to a

sta te c o urt a nd the sta te c ourt ha s de nie d
re lie f, it m a

y be pre sum e d tha

t the sta te c ourt a d

judic ate d the c la im

on the m e rits in the a bse nc e of a

ny indic ation or sta

te -law proc e d

ura l princ iple s to the c ontra ry .” Harrington v
. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 99 (2011). Although this pres um ption “m ay be ove rc o m e whe n the re is re a s on to think som e othe r e xpla

nation for thesta

te
c ourt’ s de c ision is mo re like ly ,” id. at 99–100, Thie c ke m ake s no suc h showing. R athe r, the C a l ifornia

C ourt of Appe a l’ s de c ision m a k e s re fe re nc e to the Due Proc e s s C la

use . Furthe rm o re , a lthough the C a l ifornia

C ourt of Appe a l’ s opinion disc usse s C a lifornia

la w, the re le va

nt C a l ifornia

sta nda rds a re “ at le a st a s prote c tive ” a s the re le va

n t fe de ra l sta

nda rds, so “ the fe de ra l c la im [s] m ay be
re ga rde d a s ha

ving be e n a d

j udic ate d on the m e rits.” J ohnson , 133 S.C t. at 1096. The re fore , the highly

de fe re ntia l sta

nda rd of re vie w e sta

blishe d by AEDPA
a pplie s. 1. Thie c ke first a

rgue s the tria l c o urt viola

te d his due proc e s s right to pre s e nt a de fe nse by l im iting thee xte nt to whic h Dr. Foste r c ould te stify a bout the he arsay sta t e m e n t s on whic h he ba se d his opinion. The princ ipa l he arsay sta te m e nts tha

t Thie c ke c onte nds we re im prope rly e x c l ude d c onc e rn Thie c ke ’ s
a buse a nd ne gle c t by

the vic tim s. The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s re

je c tion of this c la im wa s ne ithe r c o ntra

ry to, nor a n unre a s ona

b le a p plic ation of, Supre m e
3C ourt pre c e de n t. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). Unde r C hambe rs v . Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973), the e xc lusion of he arsay

sta te m e nts tha

t a re c ritic a l to the de fe nse and tha

t be a r “p e rsua sive a ssura

nc e s of trustworthine s s” m ay rise to the le ve l of a due proc e ss viola

tion. Howe v e r, in c ontra st to thee x c lude d sta te m e nts in C hambe rs , the e xc lude d he a rsay te stim ony

he re wa s not dire c tly

e xc ulpa tory . M ore o ve r, the e xc lude d sta t e m e nts ha d fe we r indic ia of re lia bility . Dr. Foste r te stifie d tha

t Thie c ke him se lf did not a c knowle dge “ m uc h” phy s ic a l a

buse , whic h
c a sts doubt on the

re lia bility of the othe r de c la

rants’ sta te m e nts tha

t Thie c ke wa s
a buse d . Furthe rm ore , the he arsay sta te m e nts we re m a d e to the de fe nse ’ s e xpe rt witne s s pre pa

ring to te s tify

at tria l, not “ sponta

ne o usly to a c lose a c qua i nta

nc e .” Id. at 300. Ac c ordingly , the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s de c ision wa s not a n
unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of C

hambe r s . Se e Unite d State

s v . Sc he ffe r , 523 U.S. 303, 316 (1998) (“ C

h ambe rs spe c ific a lly

c o nfine d its holding to the ‘ fa c ts a nd
c irc um s ta nc e s ’ pre se n te d in tha

t c a se . . . .” ). Thie c ke m a

ke s a re l ate d c la im

tha t the tria l c ourt viola

te d his dueproc e ss right to pre se nt a

de fe nse by

a llowing the

prose c ution gre ate r la

titudeto e l ic it he arsay inform ation in its cross-e xam inat ion of Dr. Foste r. The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s re

je c tion of this c la im

wa s ne ithe r c ontra

ry to, nor a

n unre a sona

ble
a pplic ation of, c le arly

e s ta blishe d fe de ra l la

w a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt.
4Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). TheSupre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t the a dm ission of
e vide nc e only

im plic ate s due proc e ss whe n the “ e vide nc e ‘ is so e xtre m e ly unfa ir that its a dm ission viola

te s funda m e nta l c onc e ptions of justic e . . . .’ ” P e rry v . N e w Hampshire , 565 U.S. 228, 237 (2012) (quoting Dow ling v . Unite d State s , 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990)). B e c a

use Thie c ke ha s not de m onstra t e d tha t the he arsay
e vide nc e the prose c ution wa s pe rm itte d to introduc e on c ross-e xam i nat ion viola te d funda m e nta l c o n c e ptions of justic e , the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s re

je c tion of this a rgum e nt wa s ne ithe r c o ntra ry to, nor a n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le arly
e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt. Furthe rm ore , the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t any e rror wa s non-pre

judic ia l be c a use , a s Thie c ke c onc e de s , de fe nse c ounse l wa s pe rm itte d to e lic it simila r he arsay te stim ony

from Dr. Foste r on re d ire c t e xam ination. 2. Thie c ke ne xt a

rgue s the tria l c ourt viola

te d his c onstitutiona

l rights by prohibiting him

from introduc ing e vide nc e of tra c e s of m e tha m phe tam ine re ve a le d in the vic tim s’ a

utopsie s, pornogra

phic vide ota

pe s found in the vic tim s’ a pa rtm e nt,
and e vide nc e tha

t Thie c ke ’ s m othe r ha d solic ite d the m urde r of a pre v ious husba n d. The C a lifornia

C o urt of Appe a l re

je c te d this a

rgum e nt, finding tha

t this
e vide nc e wa s only

m a rgina lly re late d to Thie c ke ’ s the ory of de fe n s e . The C onstitution pe

rm its thee xc lusion of e vide nc e whose “ probative va lue is
5outwe ighe d by c e rta in othe r fa c tors suc h a s unfa ir pre judic e , c onfusion of the issue s, or pote n tia l to m isle a d the jury .” Holme s v . South C

arolina , 547 U.S. 319, 326 (2006). Thie c ke doe s not m e aningfully a ddre ss the C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l’ s c onc l usion tha

t the e vide nc e of the Gre e ns’ ba c kground a n d life s ty le wa s prope rly e xc lude d be c a

use it ha d littlere l e va

nc e . Thie c ke only

offe rs c o n c lusory
a sse rtions tha

t this e vide n c e wa s proba tive whic h a

re insuffic ie nt to de m onstra te that the C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l’ s a

pplic at ion of Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt wa s obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble
. 3. Thie c ke a lso c onte nds tha t the tria l c o urt e rre d by

prohibiting him from introduc ing e vide nc e of his a buse and ne gle c t by

the vic tim s. Howe ve r, the tria l
c ourt ne ve r issue d a

c at e goric a l prohibition from introduc ing e vide nc e of Thie c k e ’ s a

buse and ne gle c t. The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s re

je c tion of Thie c k e ’ s c la im that the tria l c ourt e rre d in issuing such a

ruling wa s ne ithe r
c ontra ry to, nor a n unre a sona

b le a pplic ation of, c le a

rly e s ta blishe d fe de ra l la

w a s de te rm i ne d by

the Supre m e C ourt. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). Eve n if the e xc lusion of e vide nc e rose to the le ve l of a c onstitutiona

l viola tion, a ny e rror wa s ha

rm l e ss unde r Bre c h t v . Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993). First, a s the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l note d, m uc h of the te stim ony

tha t Thie c k e c om

pla ins wa s e xc lude d wa s, in fa c t, ultim ate ly pre se nte d to thejury , 6inc l uding e vide nc e tha t Thie c ke gre w up in a

n e nvironm e nt of e xtre m e stre ss, and suffe re d de priva

tion a t the ha nds of his mothe r, Dr. Foste r wa s thus a b le to c onve y his opinion to the jury

an d at le a st som e he a

rsa y e v ide nc e tha

t form e d the ba sis of that opinion. Furtherm ore , the e vide nc e of Thie c ke ’ s guilt wa s ove rwhe lm ing. The prose c ution pre se nte d substa ntia l e vide nc e at tria l tha

t Thie c ke ha d the
re quisitem e nta l sta

te to c om m it first-de g re e m

urde r, inc luding theundispute d te stim ony tha t Thie c ke (1) re pe ate dly

thre ate ne d to kill his m

othe r a fte r le arning his c ar wa s re posse sse d, (2) shot theGre e ns in the ir house , (3) burne d his c l othe s, (4) burie d the gun in a

pla n te r box, a

nd (5) fle d the jurisdic tion. Ac c ordingly , we
c onc lude tha

t the e xc l usion of e vide nc e a bout whic h Thie c k e c om

pla i ns did not have a “ substa

ntia l a nd injurious e ffe c t

or influe nc e in de te rm ining thejury ’ s
ve rdic t.” Id. 4. Fina lly , Thie c ke ra ise s a c um ulat ive e rror argum e nt for the first tim e in his re ply brie f. The C ourt will not c onside r this c um u lat ive e rror c la im be c a

use it is not e xha

uste d, se e W

oote n v . K

irk land, 540 F.3d 1019, 1025–26 (9th C ir. 2008), the i ssue wa s not c e rtifie d for a ppe a l, a n d Thie c ke fa ile d

to c om ply with theNinth C irc uit’ s rule s in pre se nting this unc e rtifie d issue , se e 9th C ir. R
. 22-1(e ) & C om m itte e Note
. AFFIRM E D.
7