N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT THOM AS FR

ANK M ANISC ALC O, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. A. M . GONZALES, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 12-55100

D.C . No. 8:03-c v-01363-DDPFM O ORDER and M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Nove m

be r 21, 2014 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED SEP 09 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.

** W e have c onside re d the pe tition for re he aring. The m e m orandum disposition file d M arc h 30, 2015 is withdra wn. This m e m orandum

disposition is substitute d for the disposition file d M arc h 30, 2015. The pe tition for re he aring a

nd pe tition for re he a

ring e n ba nc from tha t disposition is de

nie d a s m oot. Subse que nt pe titions for re he aring a

n d pe titions for re he aring e n ba nc a ffirm ing this disposition m ay be file d. Fe de ra l R

ule of Appe lla

te Proc e dure 40 now c o ntrols.B e fore : KLEINFELD a nd PAEZ, C i rc uit Judge s, a n d C HR ISTENSEN, C hie f Distric t Judge . ***

As the C a lifornia

C o urt of Appe a l de c i sion se ts out in de ta il, M an isc a lc o m urde re d thre e pe ople . An im m uniz e d a c c om

plic e te s tifie d tha

t the m urde rs a rose from the m e tha

m phe tam i n e de a lings of a

m otorc y c le ga

n g. The fa c ts a

nd the witne s se s we re biz arre , c ontra dic tory , a n d c onfusing. The

m ost trouble som e issue s, at this sta

te of the c a se , a

re the e xtra ordina

ry de la y s in the proc e e dings.

This is a n a ppe a l of a de nia l of a

fe de ra l ha

be a s c orpus pe tition under 28 U.S.C . § 2254, a fte r fina l judgm e nt a ffirm i ng the c onvic tions in the sta te c ourt. The lim ita

tions of our a

uthority unde r § 2254 c ontrol theoutc om e . Unfortuna te ly , the i ssue s are obsc ure d by the le ngth of M anisc a lc o’ s subm issions, a 141 pa ge brie f shorte ne d on our orde r to 117 pa ge s but still m ore tha n twic e the num be r of words pe rm i tte d by the rule s, a nd te n volum e s (2,033 pa ge s) of e xc e rpts of re c ord c o m

pounde d by 179 volum e s, 14 boxe s, of distric t c ourt re c o rd. The fa ilure of M anisc a lc o to sta te his c a s e c onc ise ly

inc re a s e s the risk tha

t we m ay m iss som e thing im

porta nt a n d c onse que ntly e rr, but we have done our be st to wa de

*** The Honora

ble Da na L. C hriste nse n, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion. 2through a ll this mate ria l. W e de c i de this c a se by m e m orandum

disposition, whic

h pursua nt to thege n e ra l orde rs “ is de signe d only to providethe pa

rtie s a nd the distric t c o urt with a c o nc ise e xpla nation of this C ourt’ s de c ision.” G.O. 4.3. The distric t c o urt did so mo re e xte nsive ly , in its thorough a nd c are ful 95 pa ge re port and re c om

m e ndation by

the M a gistra

te Judge , a dopte d by

the Distric t

Judge , with whic h we a gre e . M anisc a lc o a ppe a rs to ra ise four issue s: (1) pre indic tm e nt de la y ; (2) post-indic tm e nt de la

y ; (3) e xc lusion of im

pe a c hm e nt e v ide nc e re ga rding the im m uniz e d witne ss; a

nd (4) c um

ulat ive e ffe c t

of the s e and othe r c la i m e d e rrors.

M anisc a lc o’ s Due Proc e ss a rgum e nt ba se d on pre indic tm e n t de l ay arise s from the four y e ar de l a

y be twe e n the thre e 1980 m urde rs a n d the 1984 indic tm e nt. M an isc a lc o wa s a suspe c t for a substa ntia l pa rt of this four y e ar pe riod, but the polic e and prose c utors did not be lie ve the y ha d e nough e v i de nc e to c onvic t him until his a rre st in 1984. To obta

in a re ve rsa l for pre indic tm e nt de la y , M anisc a lc o m ust be ar the “ he avy ” an d

“ rare ly m e t” burde n

of de m onstra

ting a c tua l, a

nd not spe c ulative , pre

judic e . Unite d State s v. B arke n, 412 F.3d 1131, 1134 (9th C ir. 2005). He m

ust a l so show tha

t, e ve n if the re wa s pre

judic e , the le ngth of thede la y ba la nc e d a g a inst there a sons for it “ offe nds thosefunda m e nta l c onc e ptions of justic e whic h lie at the ba s e of our c ivil a nd politic a l institutions.” Id. (inte rna l 3quota

t ion m arks a

n d c ita tions omitte d). The writ c annot be grante d, unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d), unle ss the sta te c ourt de c ision wa s c ontra ry to or a n unre a s ona

ble a p plic a tion of c l e arly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt, or wa s ba se d on a n unre a sona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c t s in light of the e vide nc e pre se nte d in the sta te c ourt proc e e ding.

The m ost re le va

n t Supre m e C ourt de c ision is Unite d State s v. Lova sc o, 431 U.S. 783 (1977). Lova sc o holds tha t proof of a c tua l pre

judic e is ne c e ssa

ry but not suffic i e nt for a

due proc e ss c l a im

ba se d on pre indic tm e n t

de la y , a nd tha t inve stiga tive de la y doe s not deprive a de fe nda nt of due proc e ss. Funda m e n ta l unfa irne ss is a

sine qua non for re lie f.

The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l a ssum e d, for purpose s of a na ly sis, a c tua l pre j udic e , but c onc lude d tha t substa ntia l e vide nc e supporte d the Supe rior C ourt finding tha

t the de la y wa s ne i the r inte ntiona l nor ne glige nt, a nd the justific ation outwe ighe d the pre

judic e to M anisc a lc o. The fa c tua l de te rm ination wa s a re a s ona ble de te rm ination on the

re c ord, in light of the

diffic ulty of pe ne trating the fog of re luc ta

nt a nd unre lia ble witne sse s to de v e lop e v ide nc e tha t c ould prove M an isc a lc o’ s guilt be y o n d a re a sona ble doubt. 4M anisc a lc o a rgue s tha t his Sixth Ame ndm e nt right to a spe e dy tria l wa s de nie d him

by the de la y be twe e n indic tm e nt a

nd tria l. This issue

is m ore diffic ult tha n his pre indic tm e nt de la

y c la im , be c a

use the de la

y wa s e xtra ordina

ry . M an isc a lc o ha d a

m ore tha n te n m onth long jury

tria l , due to the poor he a lth of his c ounse l, whic h c a

use d “ we e ks to be lost.” M anisc a lc o v. Supe rior C ourt (M a nisc a lc o I), 234 C a l. App. 3d 846, 849 (1991). Tha t tria l got unde rway

ne arly six y e ars a fte r his indic tm e nt. The jury hung. He we n t to tria l a ga in thre e y e ars late r, this tim e in a

four m o nth long jury

tria l. He wa s fina lly

c onvic te d

te n y e ars a fte r his initial indic tm e nt.
The line of Supre m e C ourt de c i sions m ost on point be gins with the four fa c t or ba la

nc ing te st of B arke r v. W ingo, re quiring c o nside ra tion of thele ngth of the d e la y , the re a son for the de la

y , the de fe n da

nt’ s a sse rtion of his right to a spe e dy tria l , a nd pre judic e to the de fe nda

nt on a c c ount of thede la

y . B arke r v. W ingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). None of the fa c tors a

re ne c e ssa

ry or suffic ie nt to e sta

blish the p re se n c e or a

bse nc e of a

Sixth Am e ndm e nt viola

tion. Id. a

t 533. The y

m ust be c onside re d toge the r with suc h othe r c irc um sta

n c e s a s m ay

be re le va nt, in a

“ diffic ult a

n d se n s itive ba la

nc ing proc e s s.” Id. Ine xc usa ble gove rnm e nt ove rsights de la

y ing tria l six y e ars not e xte nuate d by the de fe nda

n t’ s a c quie sc e nc e 5e ntitle d a

de fe nda n t to re lie f in Dogge tt v. Unite d State s, but tha t wa s a fe d e ra l prose c ution, not a ha

b e a s proc e e ding unde r § 2254. Dogge tt v. Unite d State s, 505 U.S. 647, 651 (1992). Verm ont v. B rillon holds tha t de la y sought by

de fe nse c ounse l a re ordina rily attributa ble to the de fe nda

nts the y re pre se nt. Ve rm ont v. B rillon, 556 U.S. 81, 85 (2009). The C ourt in Ve rm ont c ha

ra c t e riz e s the Sixth Am e ndm e nt right to a

spe e dy tria l a s “ ‘ am orphous,’ ‘ slippe ry ,’ and ‘ ne c e ssa rily re lative .’ ” Id. at 89 (quoting B a rke r, 407 U.S. a

t 522). The C o urt did, howe ve r, c le arly hold tha t “ de la y c a use d by the de fe nse we ighs a ga inst thede fe nda nt,” and

“ if the d e la

y is a ttributa ble to the de fe nda

n t, the n his wa i ve r m ay

be give n e ffe c t unde r the sta

nda rd wa ive r doc trine .” Id. at 90. Though thede l ay in this c a se is e xtra o rdina ry , we are una

b le to c onc lude that , unde r the de fe re n tia l sta nda rd of re vie w we m

ust a pply , se e Ha

rrington v. R ic hte r, 562 U.S. 86, 102–03 (2011), tha t the de la y wa s c ontra

ry to or a n unre a s ona

ble a p plic a tion of c l e arly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt. The C a l ifornia C ourt of Appe a l a s sum e d pre judic e for purpose s of ana ly sis, but found, not unre a sona bly on the re c ord be fore it, tha t “ the postindic tm e nt de la

y wa s a lm ost a ll a

produc t of de fe nse ta c tic s.”

6As with them o unta in of pa pe r M a nisc a lc o ’ s attorne y s file d with us, so did the y burde n a nd de la y the sta te proc e e dings with innum e ra ble obsta c le s to re a c hing a judge m e nt. M anisc a lc o ’ s “ one re fusa l to wa ive tim e ,” the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l found, wa s M arc h 3, 1993, a fte r his first trial a nd e ight m onths be fore his se c o nd. Up to tha

t point, the

de la y s we re c a

use d by M anisc a lc o’ s attorne y s who, am ong othe r m e ans of im posing de la

y , “ c ould not or would not honor de a dline s for filing m otions.” M anisc a lc o I, 234 C a l. App. 3d a t 852.

M anisc a lc o’ s pe t ition be fore the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l ove r the re lia bility of the grand jury transc ript c a use d m ore tha n a y e ar of de la

y , his a tte m pt to ha ve the a ssigne d judge re c u se d c a use d a nothe r y e ar de la

y , a nd his c ha

n ge of c ounse l a nd dispute s re ga

rding it c a

use d e ight m onths in de la y , a nd a ll this de la

y wa s supple m e nte d by

innum e ra ble a dditiona l de la

y s ge n e ra te d by

his own flood of m otions a nd pe titions. The

tim e it took the a

ppe lla t e c o urts to de c ide M anisc a lc o’ s num e rous filings is not de la y tha t supports a

spe e d y tria l viola

tion. Se e Unite d Stat e s v. Loud Ha

wk, 474 U.S. 302, 316 (1986). The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l in M a nisc a lc o I found M anisc a lc o to be the prim ary c a use of the de la

y s, pa rtic u la rly in re ga rds to thele ngth of thefirst tria l:

7The c a se took fore ve r to ge t be fore a jury , a nd the duration of thetria l itse lf borde re d on the obsc e ne . A c ode fe nda nt ha [d] luffe d in the sy ste m for som e se v e n y e ars a

w a iting thec onc lusion of M anisc a lc o’ s prose c ution. The de fe nse te am c ould not or would not honor de a dline s for filing m otions. [M anisc a lc o’ s c ounse l’ s ] he a lth not only c a use d se v e re de la

y in the first tria l , it sta lle d the pre pa ra tion of m otions for the

se c ond. The re wa s no a ssura nc e she would follow her phy sic i an’ s a dvic e — s he ha d fa ile d onc e be fore , a ppa re ntly

— and still le ss tha t she would not suffer sim ila r proble m s a g a in a

ny way , furthe r disrupting the c om

m e nc e m e nt of tria l or its c om ple tion. Thejudge ha d to ste e r this c a se to port som e h ow. M an isc a lc o I, 234 C a l. App. 3d a t 852.

M anisc a lc o wa s a la

wy e r him se l f, a s we ll a s be ing re pre se nte d, so the re is no re a s on to doubt tha

t he unde rstood wha

t he wa s doing by

his de la y ing ta c tic s, a

nd, unde r Ve rm ont, his la

wy e rs’ ta c tic s would beattributa ble to him

re g ardle ss. M an isc a lc o c ould, a

nd doe s, pre se nt m any

argum e nts to thec ontra

ry , but the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s de te rm ination of wha t ha ppe ne d a nd why is not unre a s ona

ble ba se d on the re c ord the y ha d. And c onside ring the “ slippe ry ” and

“ am orphous” ba l anc ing te st the Supre m e C ourt re quire s us to a pply a l ong with with thec onside ra

ble de fe re nc e we m

ust a c c ord to sta

te c ourt de te rm inations unde r § 2254, we c annot c onc lude tha t the C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l ruling wa s c ontra ry to or a n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of B a

rke r, Dogge tt, a

nd Ve rm o nt. 8Fa irm inde d jurists c ould a t m ost disa gre e on whe the r the C a lifornia C o urt of Appe a l m isa

pplie d the s e a

uthoritie s, a

nd unde r Harrington v. R i c hte r, tha t re quire s fe de ra l c o urts to de ny

the pe tition. This is not a dire c t a ppe a l from

a fe d e ra l judgm e nt, so it doe s not m a tte r whe the r we ourse lve s m ight disagre e with the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l de c i sion, so long a s fa irm inde d jurists c o uld a gre e with it.

M anisc a lc o a lso a

rgue s tha t the e x c lusion of some of the im pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e he m ight ha

ve use d viola

te d his right to pre s e nt a

c om ple t e de fe nse unde r C ham be rs v. M ississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973). The C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l de c ision wa s not c ontra

ry to the C h am

be rs line of a

uthority or a n unre a sona

ble de te rm i nation of fa c t on the re c ord be fore it. M anisc a l c o got ple nty of e vide nc e in to prove just how ba d the gove rnm e nt’ s witne sse s we re , a nd wha t littlethe tria l c ourt ke pt out in his ve

ry le ngthy tria l would ha

ve m a de no diffe re n c e . Nor did the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l unre a sona bly a pply Supre m e C ourt pre c e d e n t in re je c ting M anisc a lc o’ s othe r e vide ntia ry c la im s. M anisc a lc o ’ s c um ulative e rror argum e nt a ddre sse s m inor e vide ntia ry m a tte rs, a

n d the c um

ulative e ffe c t of a

ny e rror wa s not so gre a t a s to viola te due proc e ss. Se e Ha

y e s v. Ay e rs, 632 F.3d 500, 524 (9th C i r. 2011) (“ B e c a use we c onc lude tha

t no e rror of c onstitutiona l 9m a gnitude oc c urre d, no c um ulative pre

judic e is possible .” ); se e a l so R upe v. W ood, 93 F.3d 1434, 1445 (9th C ir. 1996).

AFFIRM E D.

1 0