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 and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e R obe rtE . C ow e n, S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s C i r c ui tJ udge ** f orthe T hi r d C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. 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 NN Y C L AU DE C OT T ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. D O RA SCH RI RO , D i r e c t o r ; TERRY G O D D A R D , A tt orne yG e ne r a l of the S t at e, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 17042 D. C . No . 2 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 8 1 9 - J AT 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 J a m e s A . T e i l bor g, 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 D e c e m be r9, 2009 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : C OWE N, G R A B E R , an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es.

** D a nnyC ott on appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f

oraw r i tof h ab e a s c o rp u s . 

# FI LED DE C 23 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSC ott on ’ s s ol e argum enti n h i s pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus— on e that

he never ra i se d i n st at e c ou rt

— i s thathe i s a ctual l y i nn ocentof the cr i m e f or w hi ch h e wa s c o n v i c t e d . Al th o u g h C o tt o n ’ s a c tu a l i n n o c e n c e c l a i m i s u n e x h au s t e d , we a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt an d d e n yC o tto n ’s p e titio n b e c au s e “‘it is perf ec t l y c l ear that[C ott on ] do es no tra i se even a col orabl e f eder al cl ai m . ’ ” Ca sset t v. S tew a rt , 406 F . 3d 614, 624 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng G ranb erryv. G re er , 4 8 1 U .S . 1 2 9 , 1 3 5 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ) ; se e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) . T o e s t abl i s h hi s c l a i m of a c tua l i nnoc e nc e , C ott on r e l i e s on thr e e r e c a nt a t i on af fi davi t s and ei gh tal i bi af fi davi t s. B ec ause po st -tri al af fi davi t s are “ ob t ai ned w i tho utthe benefi tof cr oss- exam i nat i on , ” H e rr e r a v . C ol l i ns , 506 U . S . 390, 417 (199 3), they “ ar e t o b e tre at ed w i th a fa i r degree of skept i ci sm , ” i d. a t423 ( O ’ C onnor , J . , c onc urr i ng) . C ott on’ s a f f i da vi t s a r e no e xc e pt i on. T he r e c a nt a t i on af fid av it s e m er g ed tw o , six , an d ten ye ar s a fterC o tt o n ’s trial, w ith “[n ]o s a t i s f a c t o rye x p l a n a t i o n . . . g i v e n a s t o w h y ” th e a f f i a n t s w a i t e d s o l o n g t o c o me f o rw a r d . I

d. a t 4 1 7 . M o n ta g u e ’s a f f id a v it is u n r e liab le b e c au s e th e r e c o r d s u p p o rts the st at e c ou rt ’ s c on cl usi on thatM on t ague w as coer ce d i nt o p rovi di ng a s i m i l ar r e c a nt a t i on a f

f i da vi tbe f

or e tr i a l . W r i ght ’ s a f

f i da vi ti s ha r d t o be l i e ve be c aus e he s a y s th a t h e e rr e d in id e n tif y in g C o tto n a s th e s h o o te rd e s p ite th e f a c t th a t C ot ton is h is c o u s in . F ors i m i l a rr e a s ons ( W i l l i a m s kne w C ott on) , w e f i nd unpe r s ua s i ve W i l l i a m s ’ m uc h be l a t e d a s s e rt i on tha ts he “ m a de abi g m i s t a ke . ” T he a l i bia f

f id a v its a r e a ls o u n r e liab le ; m o s t o f th e m a r e s ig n e d b yth e n - e ig h t- y e a r - o ld a tt e nde e s a tabi rthda ypa rtyw i th c l os e t o thi rtyki ds i n a tt e nda nc e . A tbe s t , the af fi davi t s, vi ew ed as a w ho l e, do no thi ng m ore than “ un derc utthe evi dence pres ent ed attri al ”; they do “ no taf fi rm at i vel y . . . prov e [ C ott on ’ s] i nn ocence. ” Ca rri g er v. S tew a rt , 1 3 2 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( e n b a n c ) . B e c aus e C ott on ha s notc om e c l os e t o m a ki ng the “ e xtr a or di na r i l yhi gh” s h o w in g r e q u ir e d to e s tab lis h af r e e s ta n d in g c la im o f

a c tu a l in n o c e n c e , s e e id. at 47 6, w e nee d n otdeci de w hether s uch a cl ai m i s c og ni zabl e i n a no n-capi t al ca se , o rw h e th e rs u c h ac la im e q u itab lyto lls A E D P A ’s s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s , se e 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; M aj oyv . R oe , 2 9 6 F .3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 6 - 7 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( “T h is i m po rt antl egal qu es t i on . . . i s notapprop ri at el y a dd re ss ed by us i n a hypo thet i ca l c o n te x t.” ) . F in a lly , w e tr e a t C o tto n ’s p r e s e n ta tio n o f u n c e rtif ie d is s u e s a s am o tio n to e x p a n d th e C e rtif

ic a te o f A p p e a lab ility , a n d w e d e n yth e m o tio n . See 9 th Ci r . R. 2 2 - 1 ( e ) ; Hi i v ala v . W

ood , 1 9 5 F .3 d 1 0 9 8 , 1 1 0 4 - 0 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . AF F I R ME D.