N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TIM OTHY WAYNE PER R Y , JR ., Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. FR EDERIC K

B . HAW S, W arde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 11-17273

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-00875-JKS
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 Jam e s K. Single ton, Se n ior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, M c KEOW N, a nd GOULD, C irc u it Judge s. State prisone r Tim othy

W ayne Pe rry , Jr. a

p pe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for a writ of ha

b e a s c orpus file d pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2254. W e have jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253(a ), and we
a ffirm
. 

# FIL E D
APR 02 2014 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.Pe rry

c onte nds tha

t the pre se nc e of a

n a lle g e d ly

bia se d juror on his jury viola te d his Sixth Ame ndm e nt right to a fa ir tria l. The only

argum e nt pre s e nte d by Pe rry is tha

t the juror in que stion ha d a n “ im plie d bia s” a ga inst him
. W e re vie w the d e nia l of ha

be a s re lie f de novo. Murdaugh v . Ry a n , 724 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th C ir. 2013). In a

c a se tha t wa s not gove rne d by

the Antite rrorism

and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty

Ac t (AEDPA), we he ld tha t c la im s involving a

juror’ s “ i m

plie d bia s ” are re vie we d

de novo, “

be c a use im plie d bia s is a m ixe d que stion of la w a nd fa c t .” Fie lds v . Brow n , 503 F.3d 755, 763, 770 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ) (c i tation
om i tte d). Unde r Fie lds , Pe rry ’ s im

plie d bia s a

rgum e nt m

ust be re je c t e d, whe the r we
re vie w unde r AEDPA’ s “ high sta nda rd of de fe re nc e ,” De W

e av e r v . Runne ls , 556 F.3d 995, 997 (9th C ir. 2009), or denovo. As to the first, “ [n] one of Pe rry ’ s grounds c onc e rning [the juror in que stion] we re a d dre sse d on the m e rits by any C a lifornia c ourt.” None the le ss, it is to be “ p re sum e d tha

t the sta te c ourt
a djudic ate d the c la i m

on the m e rits.” H

arrington v
. Ric hte r , 131 S. C t. 770, 784–85 (2011); se e also Amado v . Gonzale z , 734 F.3d 936, 944–45 (9th C ir. 2013). Unde r AEDPA, a sta te c ourt de c ision “ c an only be re ve rse d if it wa s
c ontra ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le a

rly e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s.” Vlasak v . Supe rior 2C

ourt of C al. , 329 F.3d 683, 687 (9th C ir. 2003) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd
c ita tions omitte d). Howe ve r, if “ no Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt c re ate s c le arly
e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w re lating to the le ga l issuethe ha be a s pe titione r ra ise d in sta te c o urt, the sta

te c ourt’ s de c ision c annot be c ontra ry to or a n unre a sona

ble
a pplic ation of c le a

rly e sta b lishe d fe de ra l la

w.” Bre w e r v . Hall , 378 F.3d 952, 955 (9th C ir. 2004). As wee xpla ine d in Fie l ds , “ the Supre m e C ourt ha s not e xplic itly
a dopte d (or re

je c te d) the doc trine of im plie d bia s.” F

ie l ds , 503 F.3d a

t 768; se e also id. at 771 (sta

ting tha t “ the Supre m e C ourt ha s ne ve r he ld tha t a juror wa s im plie dly bia se d in the a

bse nc e of juror dishone s ty ” ). Thus, the re is no Supre m e C ourt pre c e de n t tha

t c re at e s “ c le arly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w” re lating to the

issue of im plie d bia s in this c onte xt. Inste a d, Fie lds re lie d on prior N inth C irc uit pre c e de nts in its disc

ussion of im

plie d bia s. Id. at 768–70. Thus, be c a use the re is no Supre m e C ourt pre c e d e nt c re ating c le a rly e sta blishe d la w re l ating to this issue , the s tat e c ourt’ s pre s um

ptive re je c tion of Pe rry ’ s c la i m

c a nnot ha ve be e n “ c ontra

ry to or a n unre a s ona

ble a pplic ation of c le arly e sta

blishe d fe d e ra l la

w.” Bre w e r , 378 F.3d at 955. Pe rry ’ s c la im

would likewise be re

je c te d unde r de novo re vie w. As we
e xpla ine d in Fie l

ds , bia s is only

to be “ i m plie d” to a

juror on “ rare oc c a sions” whe n “ e xc e ptiona l” c irc um sta n c e s e xist. Id. at 766, 768, 770; se e also id. at 772

3(stating tha

t “ it is we ll a c c e p te d tha

t bia s m a y be pre s um e d only

in ‘ e xtre m e ’ or

‘ e xtra ordina

ry ’ c a se s” ). As we a lso e xpla ine d in Fie lds , whe n the issue of juror bia s arise s “ on c o lla

te ra l re vie w of a c onvic tion in sta te c ourt,” the “ c ritic a l fa c tor” to be c onside re d is “ dishone sty in voir dire .” Id. at 772–73. Here , Pe rry doe s not
c onte nd tha

t the juror in que stion wa s dishone st during voir dire
. Thus, unde r Fie lds , Pe rry ’ s c la im of im plie d bia s c an only

suc c e e d if it fa lls within theam

bit of c a se s in whic h we would im ply bia s de spite the juror’ s hone sty during voir dire . In Fie lds , we e xpla ine d a pre vious c a se in whic h we im p lie d bia s in suc h c irc um sta

nc e s– Unite d State

s v . Allsup , 566 F.2d 68 (9th C i r. 1977)–by sta ting tha t the “ im plie d bia s tha t we found in Allsup wa s ba se d on the jurors’ dire c t re lationship with the vic tim [of the c rim e s at

issue in the c a s e ] and the ir own vulne ra bility to the sa m e ty pe of c onduc t for whic h [the de fe nda nts] we re on tria l.” Fie l ds , 503 F.3d a

t 773 (disc ussing Allsup , 566 F.2d a t 71–72). Howe v e r, Pe rry doe s not c onte nd tha

t the juror a

t issueha d a

“ dire c t re lat ionship with the vic tim ” of his c rim e s, nor tha

t the juror wa s vulne ra

ble to the sa

m e ty pe of c onduc t for whic h Pe rry

wa s on tria l. Nor do Pe rry ’ s othe r a l le gations support a finding of

“ e x c e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s” i n this c a se . Pe rry a lso c onte nds tha

t he re c e ive d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of both tria l a

nd
a ppe lla te c o unse l, due to the ir fa ilure to c ha lle nge the se ating of thejuror in 4que stion. The distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t Pe rry ’ s tria l c ounse l m a de a “ strate gic de c ision” not to obje c t to the juror, a c onc lusion with whic

h we a gre e . Se e

, e .g., LaGrand v . Ste w art , 133 F.3d 1253, 1275 (9th C ir. 1998) (holding tha t c ounse l’ s

“ re a sona ble strate gic de c ision[s] ” do not “ c o nstituteine ffe c tive a ssista n c e ” ). Ac c ordingly , the re wa s a lso no ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of a p pe lla te c ounse l. S

e e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Moore , 921 F.2d 207, 210–11 (9th C ir. 1990). AFFIRM E D.

5