N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SAM UEL ISAAC M AR QUEZ,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. JO GENTR

Y, W arde n a

nd ATTOR

NEY GENER AL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-15634 D.C . No. 3:08-c v-00647-LR

H-VPC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s , a n d ZIPPS, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
JAN 17 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Je nnife r G. Zipps, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.Sam

ue l M arque z a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of ha be a s c orpus re lie f for his jury

c onvic tion for first-de gre e m urde r with a

de a d ly we a pon. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing M arque z ’ s c la i m tha t the Ne va da sta te distric t c ourt’ s re fusa l to givean insa n i ty instruc tion 1 viola

te d his dueproc e ss rights. Unde r the Antite rrorism and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t (AEDPA), ha

be a s
re lie f for a

sta te c o urt judgm e nt m ay

only be grante d if the a djudic ation “ re sulte d in a de c ision tha

t wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

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

w, a s de t e rm i ne d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d Stat e s” or “ re sulte d

in a de c ision tha

t wa s ba se d on a

n unre a sona

ble de te rm ination of the fa c ts in light of the e vide nc e pre se nte d in the sta te c ourt proc e e ding.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d); se e also Harrington v . Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 100 (2011). Ne ithe r is pre se nt in this c a se . The re is no fe d e ra l right to pre se nt a n insa nity de fe nse . Me dina v .C

alifornia , 505 U.S. 437, 449 (1992); C lark v . Arizona , 548 U.S. 735, 752 n.20 (2006). Thus,
we are bound by

the de c isions of sta

te c o urts inte rpre ting the sta te la wa ffirm ative de fe nse of insa

nity
. Se e Este llev . Mc Guire , 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Gilmore v .

1 W e de c line to a ddre ss M arque z ’ s c la im re ga rding a dim inishe d c a

p a c ity instruc tion a s the C e rtific a te of Appe a la bility did not gra

nt him a right to a ppe a l that issue . 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c )(3); Ninth R u le 22-1(e ). 2Tay lor , 508 U.S. 333, 342 (1993) (“ [I] nstruc t ions tha t c onta in e rrors of sta

te la w
m ay not form the ba sis for fe de ra l ha

be a s re lie f.” ); Bradshaw

v . Ric he y , 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005). Further, the e xte nt of the right to pre se nt a “ c om ple t e de fe nse ” unde r fe de ra l la

w doe s not e xte nd to “ re s tric tions im pose d on a

de fe nda nt’ s a bility to pre se nt a

n a ffirm a tive de fe nse ,” but only the “ e xc lusion of e vide nc e ” and the

“ te stim ony

of de fe nse witne sse s.” Gilmore , 508 U.S. a t 343-44; s e e also Este lle , 502 U.S. a

t 71-72 (“ [T] he fa c t tha

t the instruc tion wa s a lle ge dly inc orre c t unde r sta te la w is not a ba s is for ha

be a s re lie f.” ). 2 As suc h, the re wa s no “unre a sona ble
a pplic a tion” of c le arly e sta b lishe d fe d e ra l la

w, nor a n unre a sona

ble de te rm ination of the fa c ts. 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). TheNe va da Supre m e C ourt he l d tha

t the sta te

2 The disse nt m ake s thre e e rrors. First, the disse nt c ite s B radle y v . Dunc an , 315 F.3d 1091 (9th C ir. 2002), a s c ontrolling pre c e de nt. Bradle y ne ithe r c ite s nor e xam ine s the Unite d Stat e s Supre m e C ourt pre c e d e nt dire c tly on point, na

m e ly Este lle , 502 U.S. a

t 71-72, a nd Gilmore , 508 U.S. a

t 343-44. As re quire d

in ha be a s re vie w, we m

ust follow the

Supre m e C ourt’ s pre c e de n t to re solve this c a se . 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d) (re quiring a sta te c ourt de c ision tha

t wa s “ a n unre a sona

ble a pplic a tion of, c le arly

e s ta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, as de te rmine d by

the Supre me C ourt of the Unite d State

s ” for ha be a s re vie w(e m

pha sis a d de d )); Harrington , 562 U.S. at 100. Se c ond, both Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 459 F.3d 990 (9th C ir. 2006), and the prim a

ry c a se re lie d upon by the Bradle y pa ne l , Mathe w

s v . Unite d State

s , 485 U.S. 58 (1988), a

re dire c t a ppe a ls from

a fe de ral distric t c o urt, not ha

be a s c a se s re vie w ing: (1) a

sta te tria l; or (2) the a

pplic a bility of a state de fe nse not re c o gniz e d in fe de ra l la

w. Fina lly , Bradle

y use d a pre -AEDPA c a se , C

o nde v . He nry , 198 F.3d 734 (9th C ir. 1999), to justify its useof Mathe w

s , a non-ha be a s c a se . Se e Bradle

y , 315 F.3d a

t 1098. Thus, we m

u st inste a d follow them a

n datory re quire m e nts in 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d) a nd a dhe re to Unite d

Stat e s Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt for re solution of this c a se . 3distric t c o urt prope rly re fuse d to givethe insa

nity instruc tion unde r Ne va d a la w,
and we are bound by that de te rm ination. 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing M arque z ’ s ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c l a im . Unde r the AEDPA’ s “ doubly ” highly de fe re ntia l re vie wfor de fic ie nt pe rform anc e c la im s, Harrington , 562 U.S. a t 105, M arque z ’ s c ounse l did not pe rform

“ be low a n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a sona

ble ne ss,” nor wa s c ounse l’ s pe rform a nc e pre judic ia l to M a

rque z , id. at 104.

“ An attorne y

undoubte dly

ha s a duty to c onsult with the

c lie nt re ga

rding im porta nt de c isions, inc l uding que stions of overa rc hing de fe n se strat e gy , ” howe ve r
suc h an obliga tion “ doe s not re quire c ounse l to obta i n the de fe nda nt’ s c onse nt to
e ve ry ta c tic a l de c ision.” Florida v . N ix on , 543 U.S. 175, 187 (2004) (inte rna l
c ita tions a nd quota tion m arks om itte d). M arque z ’ s a rgum e nt only

e sta blishe s tha

t
c ounse l m ay

not ha v e c onfe rre d with him

just be fore the c losing sta te m e n t. Howe ve r, M arque z and his c o unse l m a y have e sta b lishe d an ove ra ll de fe n se strate gy at a n e arlie r tim e . C ounse l’ s c losing sta te m e nt wa s c l e arly

in c onc e rt with the o pe ning sta

te m e nt a nd re fle c te d the ove ra ll de fe nse strate gy . M ore ove r, whe n the s tat e distric t c ourt de nie d M arque z ’ s atte m pt to ge t a n instruc tion on insa

nity , it
wa s not obje c tive l y

unre a s ona

ble , nor pre

judic ia l, to a

rgue for se c ond-de gre e

4m

urde r in light of the ove rwhe lm ing e vide n c e , inc luding se c urity foota ge and a volunta ry c onfe ssion, tha

t M arque z ha d c o m

m itte d the c ha

rge d c rim e . AFFIRM E D.

5M arque z v. Ge ntry , No. 16-15634

GR AB ER , C irc u it Judge , c o n c urring in pa rt a n d disse nting in pa

rt: I c onc ur in pa

rt a nd disse nt in pa

rt. I a gre e with them a

jority that the distric t
c ourt did not err in de ny ing Pe titione r’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im , but I part wa y s with them a

jority with re spe c t to the jury

instruc t ion issue
. Eve ry c rim ina l de fe nda

nt ha s the right to a

m e a ningful opportunity

to pre s e nt a c om

ple te d e fe nse . C a lifornia

v. Trom b e tta , 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984). As we e xpla ine d in B ra dle y v. Dunc an, 315 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th C ir. 2002), tha t right " would be e m

pty if it did not enta il the furthe r right to a n instruc tion tha

t
a llowe d the jury to c onside r the de fe nse . " (Inte rna l quota tion m arks om i tte d.) Ac c ordingly , we have he ld c onsiste ntly tha t a c rim ina l de fe nda

nt ha s a fe de ra l
c onstitutiona

l right to ha

ve the jury

instruc te d

a c c ording to his or he

r the ory of the
c a se if the the ory

ha s " s om e founda

tion in e vide nc e ." Unite d State s v. Johnson, 459 F.3d 990, 992 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ). He re , Pe titione r pre se nte d som e e vide nc e supporting his insa nity de fe nse . 1 

# FIL ED
JAN 17 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1 Unde r Ne va da

la w, to qua lify

a s be ing le ga l ly

insa ne , a pe rson
m ust be in a

de lusiona l sta

te suc h tha

t he c a nnot know or understa

nd the nature and c a

pa c ity of his a c t, or his de lusion m u st be suc h tha

t he c annot a ppre c iate the wrongfulne ss of his a c t, tha t is, tha t the a c t is not a uthoriz e d by

la w . So, if a

jury be lie ve s he wa s suffe ring from a de lusiona l sta

te , and if the fa c ts a s he be lie ve d the m to be in his de lusiona l sta

te w o uld justify

his a c tions, heis insa

ne an d e ntitle d to (c ontinue d...)For e xam

ple , Dr. C ham

be rs te stifie d tha

t, at the tim e of the a lle ge d offe nse , Pe titione r wa s la

boring unde r the de lusion tha t a n a p pa rition would kill him

if he did not do a s it wa

nte d. Dr. C ham

be rs furthe r te stifie d tha

t Pe t itione r did not
c onside r " right a

nd wrong" whe n he a c t e d; rathe r, Pe titione r " did wha t he did out of fe a r and out of se lf pre se rvation." The m a jority , re ly ing on Gilmore v. Ta y l or, 508 U.S. 333, 342 (1993), a nd Este lle v. M c Guire , 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991), a sse rts tha t the right to pre se nt a
c om ple t e de fe nse doe s not, unde r c le arly e s ta blishe d fe de ra l la

w, inc lude the right to pre se nt a

n a ffirm a tive de fe nse . B ut B ra dle y , whic h we de c ide d a fte r Gilm ore , is to the c ontra

ry . The re , we he ld tha

t the tria l c ourt’ s fa ilure to instruc t the jury on
an a ffirm a tive de fe nse (e ntra p m e nt) viola

te d the de fe nda

nt’ s fe d e ra l c onstitutiona

l right to pre se nt a

c om ple te de fe nse . B ra dle y , 315 F.3d a t 1098–99. Tha

t fa ilure , we he ld, a

m ounte d to a

viola tion of " c l e arly e sta

b lishe d fe de ra l la w." Id. at 1100 (e m pha sis a dde d ). The c a se s on whic h the m a jority re lie s pre date our de c ision in B ra dle y . The
m a jority ha s not ide ntifie d— and nor is the re
— any " inte rve ning highe r a

uthority "

1 (...c ontinue d) a c quitta l. Finge r v. Sta

te , 27 P.3d 66, 84–85 (Nev. 2001). 2that

would pe rm i t

us to re visit them atte r. M ille r v. Ga m m ie , 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba

nc ). W e are thus bound by B ra dle y ’ s holding tha

t the re is a
c le arly e sta blishe d fe de ra l right to a

jury instruc tion on a

n a ffirm at ive de fe nse , provide d tha

t the de fe nse ha s som e founda tion in e vide nc e . Id. Inde e d, we m ay not fa il to follow tha

t holding e ve n if we we re c onvinc e d tha t B ra dle y wa s wrongly de c ide d or poorly

re a sone d. Na

t’ l Fe d’ n of the B lind v. Unite d Airline s Inc ., 813 F.3d 718, 728 (9th C ir. 2016). 2 The m a jority furthe r sugge s ts tha

t B ra dle y doe s not a

pply he re be c a

use AEDPA lim its our re vie w to only Supre m e C o urt pre c e de nt. True , 28 U.S.C
. § 2254(d) re quire s us to de te rm ine whe the r the re wa s " an unre a sona b le a pplic ation of[] c le arly

e sta blishe d Fe d e ra l la

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the

2 The m a jority c orre c tly points out tha

t B ra d le y did not c ite the c a se s tha

t the m a jority c onside rs m ost re le va

nt; ra the r, B ra dle y

re lie d on M athe ws v. Unite d Stat e s, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988), C a lifornia v. Trom b e tta , 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984), and W illia

m s v. Ta y lor, 529 U.S. 362, 407 (2000). B ra dle y , 315 F.3d a t 1098, 1099, 1101. B ut the B ra dle y c ourt a lso c ite d

B a rke r v. Yukins, 199 F.3d 867, 875–76 (6th C ir. 1999), c e rt. de nie d, 530 U.S. 1229 (2000), in whic h the Sixth C irc uit ha d a

pplie d Trom be tta and othe r Supre m e C o urt c a se s to find, under AEDPA, a

due proc e ss viola

tion in the

c onte xt of a

sta te c ourt’ s e rror in instruc ting a M ic higa n jury with re spe c t to a

c la im of se lf-de fe nse unde r M ic higa n la w. B ra dle y , 315 F.3d a

t 1099. W

hate ve r Supre m e C ourt c a se s B ra dle y c ite d , though, the c ourt he ld tha

t c le arly e sta blishe d Supre m e C ourt la w re quire s a

jury instruc tion on a

n a ffirm a tive de fe nse if the de fe nse is supporte d by e vide nc e . And, a s note d, we m

ust follow B ra dle y ’ s on-point holding e ve n if we disa gre e with tha

t pa ne l’ s re a s oning. 3Unite d

State s." (Em

pha sis a dde d.) B ut, a s the Supre m e C ourt ha s e xpla i ne d, " an
a ppe lla te pa ne l m ay , in a c c orda

nc e with its usua

l la w-of-the -c irc uit proc e dure s, look to c irc uit pre c e de nt to a sc e rta in whe the r it ha s a l re a dy he ld tha t the pa rtic ula r point in issue

is c le arly e sta

blishe d by

Supre m e C ourt pre c e d e nt." M arsha ll v. R odge rs, 569 U.S. 58, 64 (2013) (pe r c uriam ). Fina lly , I a gre e with them a jority tha t the re is no fre e -sta

nding fe de ra l right to pre se nt a

n insa nity de fe nse spe c ific a l ly . B ut the re is a c le arly e sta blishe d fe de ra l
c onstitutiona

l right to a

jury instruc tion on " any

re c ogniz e d de fe nse for whic h the re
e xists e vide nc e suffic ie nt for a re a sona ble jury to find in [the de fe nda

nt’ s] favor." B ra dle y , 315 F.3d a

t 1098 (e m

pha sis a dde d) (quoting M at he ws v. Unite d State s, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988)). W e have fra m e d tha t right broa dly

to inc lude any
re c o gniz e d de fe nse . Id. Tha t is, theright doe s not dep e nd on thenature of the pa rtic u la r de fe n se a sse rte d. B e c a

u se Ne va da

provide s a

n a ffirm ative de fe nse of insa nity , the Fe de ra l C o nstitution re quire s a n instruc tion whe n som e e vide nc e supports tha

t de fe nse . I the re fore re spe c tfully disse nt a s to Pe titione r’ s c la im
re ga rding his propose d jury

instruc tion.

4