N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SAR UN C HUN, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. R AUL LOPEZ, W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16466

D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01480-M C EEFB
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 M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., C hie f Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 20, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and REINHAR DT a nd M c KEOW

N , C irc uit Judge s . Sarun C hun wa s c o nvic te d of se c ond-de gre e m urde r in the de ath of B ountha vy One tha vong. C hun, who wa s 16 a t the tim e of the shooting, wa s trie d
a s a n a dult a nd se nte nc e d to 40 y e ars to life in prison. The only e xplic it the ory

of
se c o nd-de gre e m

urde r in the c a se wa s fe lony m urde r ba se d on shooting a t a n 

# FIL ED JUN 09 2016 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.oc c upie d m otor ve hic le e ithe r dire c tly or a s a n a ide r and a

be tte r. C hun a

p pe a le d,
arguing tha

t fe lony m urde r wa s ina

pplic a b le unde r the m e rge r doc trine . He a lso
c onte nde d tha

t im prope rly giving the

jury the fe l ony

m urde r instruc tion a llowe d the j ury to c onvic t him

of se c ond-de gre e m

urde r without finding m

a lic e , a n
e le m e nt of the c rim e . The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l a gre e d

and re ve rse d C hun’ s
m urde r c o nvic t ion. Pe oplev . C hun , 155 C a l. App. 4th 170 (C t. App. 2007). The C a lifornia Supre m e C o urt a lso found tha t giving the

e rrone o us instruc tion wa s fe de ra l c o nstitutiona

l e rror, but c onc lude d tha

t it wa s ha

rm le ss. Pe oplev . C

hun , 203 P.3d 425, 443–46 (C a l. 2009). C hun sought a writ of ha

be a s c orpus from

the distric t c o urt, whic h de nie d it. W e re ve rse . On ha be a s re vie w, we grant re lie f if we are c onvinc e d or ha ve grave doubt that a c onstitutiona

l e rror “ ha d substa

ntia l a nd injurious e ffe c t or influe nc e in de te rm i ning thejury ’ s ve rdic t .” O'N e al v . Mc Aninc h , 513 U.S. 432, 436 (1995) (quoting Bre c h t v . Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 627 (1993)). If a sta te c ourt
a djudic ate s ha

rm le ssne ss on them e rits, howe ve r, we c annot gra nt re lie f unle ss the sta te c o urt’ s finding tha

t the e rror wa s ha

rm l e ss be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt wa s obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble
. Se e Dav is v . Ay ala , 135 S. C t . 2187, 2198–99 (2015). W e have grav e doubt a s to whe the r giving thee rrone ous instruc tions ha d a substa ntia l a nd injurious e ffe c t on theve rdic t. M ore ove r, we hold tha t the sta te
2c ourt’ s finding of ha rm le ssne ss wa s obje c tive ly unre a sona

ble
. In brie f, the jury found tha t C hun wa s a

ga ng m e m be r pre se nt a

t the sc e ne of a ga

ng shooting, but that he did not firea

we a pon. 1 It thus a lm ost c e rta inly ba se d its c onvic tion on C hun ha ving a ide d a

nd a be tte d the shooting. Not surprisingly , give n the de arth of
e vide nc e , the jury

a ppe ars to ha

ve be e n so tightly

de a dloc ke d tha

t a fte r long de libe rat ions it re t

urne d a n inc onsiste nt ve rdic t. In se pa rate c ounts, thejury
a c quitte d C hun of thefe lonie s of shooting a t One tha vong’ s ve hic le , a

nd firing from
a ve h ic le (or a iding or a

b e tting those

a c ts). B oth a c quitta ls a

re a lso inc onsiste nt with these c ond-de gre e m urde r c onvic tion. TheSupre m e C ourt ha s note d tha t whe n fa c e d with inc onsiste nt ve rdic ts, the c ourts c annot know which one
 ̄ the
c onvic tion or thea c q

uitta l
 ̄ “ the jury

‘ re a lly m e ant.’ ” Unite d

State s v . Pow e ll , 469 U.S. 57, 68 (1984). In c lose c a se s like this c ourts a re c a utious a bout finding ha

rm le ssne ss: In a ll c a se s the c onstitutiona l sa fe gua rds a re to be je a lously

pre se rve d for the be n e fit of the a c c use d, but e spe c ia lly is this true whe re the sc a le s of justic e m ay be de lic ate ly poise d be twe e n guilt a

nd innoc e n c e . The n e rror, whic h unde r som e c irc um sta n c e s would not be ground for re ve rsa l, c annot be brushe d a side a s im

m ate ria l sinc e the re is a re a l c h anc e tha

t it mi ght ha

ve provide d the slight im

pe tus whic h swung thesc a le s towa

rd guilt.

1 As pa rt of the se c ond-de gre e m urde r c onvic tion, thejury found “ not true ” the s pe c ia l c irc um sta

nc e tha t C hun ha d “pe rsona lly

and inte ntiona lly

disc ha rge d a fire arm proxim ate ly

c a using gre at bodily

injury or de ath.” 3Glasse r v . Unite d State s , 315 U.S. 60, 67 (1942) (re c o gniz e d a s supe rse de d on othe r grounds by B ourjaily v . Unite d State

s , 483 U.S. 171, 181 (1987)); se e also Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 696 (1984) (“ [A] ve rdic t . . . only we akly supporte d by the re c ord is m ore like ly to ha ve be e n a ffe c te d by e rrors . . . .” ). As
we re c e ntly

re c ogniz e d, the Supre m e C o urt’ s ana ly s is in Glasse r and Stric k

land still binds a

ll fa irm inde d jurists. Se e Parle v . Runne ls , 505 F.3d 922, 928 & n.7 (9th C ir. 2007). M ore ove r, e ve n a ssum ing the se c ond-de gre e m urde r c onvic tion wa s the
ve rdic t the jury

“ m e ant ,” we ne e d to know, a t le a st broa d ly , what the jury thought C hun did to aid a

nd a be t be fore we c an

e va luate the e ffe c t

of the inc orre c t instruc tion. The re wa s no e v i de nc e a s to how C hun a ide d or a be tte d the c rim e , 2 and

2 It is worth noting tha

t we have he ld tha

t C a lifornia

c ourts we re unre a s ona

ble unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1) in a ffirm ing a n a iding a nd a be tting c onvic tion unde r sim i la

r fa c ts. Se e J

uan H. v . Alle n , 408 F.3d 1262 (9th C i r. 2005). In tha

t c a se , a 15 y e ar old de fe nda

nt a nd his brother we re ga

ng m e m be rs. Id . The de fe nda

nt stood behind his brothe r a s the brothe r shot a

nd kille d a

m e m be r of a riva l ga ng. The re wa s no e vide nc e that the de fe nda nt sa id or did a

nyt hing to e nc oura g e or he l p his brother. Id . at 1266-67. W e he ld this e v ide nc e wa s not suffic i e nt to support e ithe r the a c t e le m e nt or the m e n s re a of a iding a

n d a be tting m urde r. Id . at 1277-79. 4the j ury

e xpre ssly found tha

t C hin did not fire

a we a p on. 3 The re fore we are le ft with ne arly

tota l doubt a

bout thee ffe c t of the e rror. This doubt is re inforc e d by the
re a l possibility , give n

the inc onsiste nt ve rdic ts, tha t the jury c onvic te d

through

“ m ista ke [or] c om

prom ise ,” in whic h c a se prope r instruc tions c ould e a sily have
swa y e d the outc o m e . Se ePow e ll , 469 U.S. a t 65. This is pre c ise ly

the kind of c a se to whic h O’N

e al ’ s “ grave doubt” holding is me ant to a pply
. W e a lso find thesta

te c ourt’ s ha

rm le ssne ss de c ision obje c tive l y
unre a s ona

ble within the

m e aning of se c tion 2254(d)(1). No fair m inde d jurist would c onc lude tha

t it wa s c orre c t to find the e rror harm le ss be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt, given the tota l a

bse nc e of e vide nc e of what C hun did to ai d a nd a be t a nd our
re sulting ina

bility to a sse ss the e ffe c t of the instruc tiona l e rror whic h pe rm itte d the jury to c onvic t C hun a

b se nt a showing of m a lic e . R e a sona ble doubt is the

stric te st sta nda rd c onsiste nt with re a sone d de c ision-m aking. It is “the ve ry high le ve l of proba b ility re quire d by

the C onstitution”

be fore de priving a

pe rson of libe rty . Vic tor v . N

e brask a , 511 U.S. 1, 14 (1994). Any doubts m ust be so a

tte nuate d tha

t a
re a s ona ble pe rson would “not he sita te ” to dismiss the m . Id at 21
. Give n the

3 The State sugge sts tha

t C hun’ s sta

te m e nts whilein de te ntion he lp prove that he a ide d a

nd a be tte d the shooting. Eve

n if the sta te m e nts we re probative , the y we re a dm itte d for the lim ite d purpose of showing C hun’ s ga ng m e m b e rship. The y we re e xpre ssly not to bec onside re d for a nything e lse , inc luding a s e vide nc e of C hun’ s inte nt a

t the tim e of the shooting. 5de gre e of c e rta inty re quire d, the sta

te c ourt wa s obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble in
c onc luding tha

t the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss be y ond a re a sona

ble doubt. 4 The distric t c ourt is dire c te d to issuethe writ orde ring the Stat e to re try C hun within a re a sona b le tim e or to re le a se him
. RE V E RSE D.

4 C hun a lso a sse rts tha

t a lthough inc onsiste nt ve rdic t s a re tole rat e d, the sta

te c ourt a pplie d C hapman in a

n obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble m anne r whe n it infe rre d from the inc o nsiste nt ve rdic ts tha t the jury be lie ve d C hun ha d pa

rtic ipate d in the shooting, de spite the fa c t tha t whe n looking a t inc o nsiste nt ve rdic ts, c ourts c annot know whic h one the jury

a c tua lly m e ant. Pow e ll , 469 U.S. a t 65–68. B e c a

use we gran t re lie f, we ne e d not de c ide this que stion, nor a d dre ss C hun’ s othe r c la im s.
6