T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA VI D R OB E R T R UD E R MAN,

P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v . CHARLE S R YA N; ATTORNEY GE NE R AL OF T HE S T AT E OF AR I Z ON A, R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s . N o. 10- 16670 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 8 8 7 - G MS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona G . M urr a y S now , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 13, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: T H O M A S , F IS H E R an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D avi d R ob ertR ud erm an appeal s the deni al of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 h abea s c orpus pe t i t i on c ha l l e ngi ng hi s s t a t e c our tc onvi c t i ons f ors e xua l c onduc tw i th a mi n o ra n d p u b l i c s e x u a l i n d e c e n c y t o ami n o r . W e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED

JU N 11 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

1. R i gh t to a n Im pa rt i alJury . R u d e rm a n c o n te n d s th a t h e w a s d e n ie d h is r ig h t to a n im p a r tia l ju ry b e c au s e th e s ta te c o u r t f a ile d to s tr ik e s u as p o n te s ix ju r o r s w h o w e r e b ia s e d . E v e n if w e w e r e to r e v ie w th is c la im d e n o v o , it w o u ld fai l . B ecau se R u d erm an d i d n o tm o v e t o d i sm i ss th e j u ro rs fo r cau se, h e m u st s how tha tthe s t a t e tr i a l c our te rr e d be c aus e “ the e vi de nc e of pa r t i a l i ty be f

or e the di stri ctcourtw as so i nd i ca t i ve of i m perm i ss i bl e j uror bi as thatthe courtw as obl i ge d t o s tr i ke [ the c ha l l e nge d j ur or s ] , e ve n though ne i the rc ouns e l m a de the re qu es t . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . Mitc h e ll , 5 6 8 F .3 d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; cf . W a in w r ig h t v . W

itt , 469 U . S . 412, 429 ( 1985) . A s t a t e tr i a l j udge ’ s f i ndi ng of im p a r tia lity is p r e s u m p tiv e ly c o rr e c t u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . See Sm i th v. P hi l l i ps , 455 U . S . 209, 218 ( 1982) . G i ve n the e xt e ns i ve voi rdi r e c onduc t e d by the court , the j urors’ re spon se s t o the court ’ s quest i on s and the re cord of other j urors tha tthe c our tdi d s tr i ke f orc aus e , R ude rm a n ha s f a i l e d t o r e butthe pr e s um pt i on of c o rr e c tn e s s b y c le a ra n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(e) (1). G i ven th at R u d er m an ’s claim w o u ldfa il o n a d e n o v o re v iew , th e s tate ap p ellate co u rt’s r e je c tio n o f

R u d e rm a n ’s c la im w a s n o t c o n tr a ry to a n y S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t. Se e B e r ghuis v . T

hom pki ns , 13 0 S . C t . 22 50 , 22 64 (201 0). 2 . I n e ffe c tiv e A s s is ta n c e o

f C o u n s e l. R ud erm an ar gu es thathi s tri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o m ov e t o stri ke the al l egedl y bi as ed j urors f or cause3

a n d f a ilin g to a d e q u a te ly q u e s tio n ju r o r s d u r in g v o ird ir e . See Stri cklan d v. W as hi ngton , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 68 7-88 (198 4). O f the si x j urors, four w er e s ubs e que nt l y que s t i one d i ndi vi dua l l y , e i the ri n c our tori n c ha m be r s , s o w e f i nd no error a s t o them . P rospec t i ve j urors #7 and #2 1, ho w ever , w er e notqu es t i on ed i n d i v i d u al l y aft er rev eal i n g th ei r p astex p eri en ces. E ven i f R ud erm an’ s a tt orney perf orm ed defi ci ent l y, the st at e app el l at e c ou rt w as no tun re as on abl e i n rej ec t i ng R ud erm an’ s i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l c l a i m . T he s t a t e c our tc oul d ha ve r e a s onabl y r e j e c t e d R ude rm a n’ s i ne f f e c t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m because, un der the se cond pron g o f the Str i c kland s ta n d a r d , h e h a s n o t s h o w n p r e ju d ic e r e s u ltin g f

r o m c o u n s e l’s e rr o r . Se e id . a t697 (n o t i n g th atco u rt s m ay co n si d er ei th er p ro n g o f th e t estfi rstan d n eed n o tad d ress both i f the de f e nda ntf a i l s one ) . P r e

j udi c e e xi s t s i f

c ouns e l f

a i l s t o que s t i on aj ur or dur i ng voi rdi r e orm ove t o s tr i ke aj ur ora nd tha tj ur ori s f ound t o be bi a s e d, b ec au se th is ev in ce s “a r ea so n ab le p ro b ab il ity th at, b u t fo r c o u n se l’ s un profes si on al errors , the re sul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” Fi e ld s v . Br o wn , 503 F . 3d 755, 776 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( e n ba nc ) ( quot i ng Str i c kland , 46 6 U . S . at69 4). W e r ec og ni ze thataddi t i on al qu es t i on i ng m i gh thave revea l ed further i nform at i on abou tthese j urors, bu tthere i s no evi dence of ac tual or i m pl i ed b i as.4 a . A c tu a l B ia s . “ A c tua l bi a s i s typi c a l l y f ound w he n apr os pe c t i ve ju ro r s tates th at h e [ ca n n o t] b e im p ar ti al, o r e x p re ss es a v iew ad v er se to o n e p ar ty’s po si t i on and res po nd s e qu i vo ca l l y a s t o w hether he coul d b e f ai r and i m part i al d e s p ite th a t v ie w .” Id . a t767. N e i the rj ur or#7 norj ur or#21 s a i d s he c oul d notbe i m part i al . N ei ther e xp re ss ed a vi ew advers e t o R ud erm an’ s posi t i on or re spon ded equi vo ca l l y a s t o w hether s he coul d b e i m part i al . M oreover, the courtand cou nsel r e p e a te d ly a s k e d th e ju r o r s a s ag r o u p w h e th e rth e y h a d a n y h e s ita tio n s ab o u t th e ir ab i l i t i es t o b e i m p art i al , an d n ei th er o f th ese j u ro rs resp o n d ed eq u i v o cal l y.

b . Im p l i ed B i a s. I m p lie d b ia s m a y b e in f e rr e d f r o m c e r ta in “e x c e p tio n a l” c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t “le a v [ e ] s e r io u s q u e s tio n w h e th e rth e tr ia l c o u r t .

. . s ubj e c t e d the de f

e nda ntt o m a ni f

e s t l y unj us tpr oc e dur e s r e s ul t i ng i n a m i sc arri age of j ust i ce . ” Sm i th v . P hi l l i ps , 455 U . S . 209, 222 ( 1982) ( c onc urr i ng op i ni on ). S uch ci rc um st ance s i ncl ud e “ a r evel at i on thatthe j uror i s an actual e m pl oy e e of

the pr os e c ut i ng a ge nc y , tha tthe j ur ori s ac l os e r e l a t i ve of one of the pa r t i c i pa nt s i n the tr i a l orthe c r i m i na l tr a ns a c t i on, ortha tthe j ur orw a s aw i tne s s or som ehow i nv ol ved i n the cr i m i nal transac t i on . ” Id . T he j urors’ ci rc um st ance s her e a r e n o t c o m p a r ab le ; s im p ly b e in g av ic tim o f c h ild m o le s ta tio n is in s u f f ic ie n t to au to m a tic a lly e s tab lis h im p lie d b ia s . See T i n sley v. B o rg , 8 9 5 F .2 d 5 2 0 , 5 2 7 ( 9 th C i r . 1990) ( “ [ C ] our t s . . . s houl d he s i t a t e be f or e f orm ul a t i ng c a t e gor i e s ofB e c aus e R ude rm a n’ s c l a i m s f a i l on the m e r i t s , w e ne e d notr e a c h the 1 q u e s tio n o f

w h e th e rs u c h c la im s w e r e p r o p e r ly e x h au s te d . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 22 54 (b)( 2). 5 r e la tio n s h ip s w h ic h b a rju r o r s f r o m s e rv in g in c e r ta in typ e s o f tr ia ls . O n ly in

‘ extre m e’ or ‘ extra ordi nary ’ ca se s s ho ul d b i as be pres um ed. ” ( ci t at i on s and i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed)) . W i tho uta s ho w i ng of ac tual or i m pl i ed bi as , R ud erm an has notes t abl i shed th a tb u tf o rh i s a tt o rn e y ’ s e rr o r s , th e r e i s ar e a s o n ab l e p r o b ab i l i ty th a tth e o u t c o me o f th e p ro ceed i n g s w o u l d h av e b een d i fferen t . H i s Str i c kland c la im f a ils . T h e r e f o r e , th e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u r t w a s n o t u n r e a s o n ab le in r e je c tin g it. 1 AF F I RME D.