N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JEREM Y SHANE HALL,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. JOHN M . M YR IC K, Supe rinte nde nt, Two R ive rs C orr. Institution,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 17-35709 D.C . No. 3:15-c v-00060-M O M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l W . M osm an, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 9, 2018 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FISHER

and C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B ENC IVENGO, ** Distric t Judge
. Je re m y Shane Ha ll a

p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de n i a l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 fe de ra l ha be a s pe t ition ba s e d on ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l. W e have



# FIL ED OCT 25 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he Honora

ble C athy Ann B e n c i ve ngo, Unite d State s Distric t Judgefor the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, were vie w de novo, se e Lambe rt v . Blodge tt ,

393 F.3d 943, 964 (9th C ir. 2004), a n d we a ffirm
. 1. Ha ll a

rgue s his trial c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive for fa iling to obje c t to a se xua l a buse dia gnosis notwithsta nding a la c k of phy sic a l e vide nc e to support tha t dia g nosis. Thec la im

re s ts on State

v . Southard

, 218 P.3d 104 (Or. 2009), de c ide d by the Ore gon Supre m e C o urt two y e ars a fte r Ha ll’ s tria l. B e fore Southard , de c isions by

the Ore gon C ourt of Appe a ls a llowe d a dm ission of the te stim ony

at issue
. Se e

, e .g., State

v . W ilson , 855 P.2d 657 (Or. C t. App. 1993); State v . Sanc he z-C ruz , 33 P.3d 1037 (Or. C t . App. 2001). In light of the doubly de fe re ntia l sta nda rd of re vie w, the sta

te post-c onvic tion re vie w (PC R) c ourt re a sona bly c onc lude d tria l c ounse l wa s not ine ffe c tive
. S e e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); Sophanthavong v . Palmate e r , 378 F.3d 859, 870 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ Stric k land doe s not m andat e pre s c i e nc e , only obje c tive ly re a sona ble a dvic e unde r pre va iling profe s siona l norm s.” ); Low r y v . Le w is , 21 F.3d 344, 346 (9th C ir. 1994) (holding c ounse l “ c annot be re quire d to a ntic ipat e our de c ision in this la te r c a se , be c a

use his c onduc t m

u st be e va luate d for purpose s of the pe rform anc e sta nda rd of Stric k

land a s of the tim e of c ounse l’ s c onduc t” (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion om i tte d)).

22. Ha ll a lso a rgue s tria l c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive for fa iling to obje c t to e xpe rt te s tim ony

highlighting the

indic ia of truth in the

vic tim ’ s sta

te m e nts to inve stiga tors. This c l a im

re sts on State

v . Lupoli , 234 P.3d 117 (Or. 2010), de c ide d by the Ore gon Supre m e C o urt thre e y e ars a fte r Ha ll’ s tria l. B e fore Lupoli , a de c ision by

the Ore gon Supre m e C ourt a llowe d the a dm ission of the te stim ony

at issue
. Se eState

v . Middle ton , 657 P.2d 1215 (Or. 1983); se ealso State v . Re mme

, 23 P.3d 374 (Or. C t . App. 2001). Again, the PC R c ourt re a sona

bly c onc l ude d Stric k land did not re quire pre sc ie nc e he re . M ore ove r, e ve n if tria l c ounse l ha d a le ga l ba sis to obje c t , the PC R c ourt re a sona

bly c onc lude d

tha t tria l c ounse l ’ s fa ilure to obje c t wa s strate gic be c a use an obje c tion m ay

hav e c om

plic ate d Ha ll’ s atte m pts to pre se nt simila

r te stim ony

atta c king thec re dibility

of the vic tim
. Se e C ulle n v . Pinholster , 563 U.S. 170, 196 (2011). 3. Tria l c ounse l wa s not ine ffe c tive for fa iling to obje c t to a n a lle ge d Griffin e rror in theprose c ution’ s c losing. The PC R c ourt re a sona

bly c onc lude d that tria l c ounse l ha d

va lid, stra

te gic re a sons for not obje c ting be c a use he did not want to dra

w furthe r atte ntion to the

dam a ging sta

t e m e nt, a nd he wa nte d to a void a
m istria l
. Se e De mirdjian v . Gipson , 832 F.3d 1060, 1072-73 (9th C ir. 2016). AFFIRM E D.

3