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 a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 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 NI E L P AT R I C K B E NJ AMI N,

P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v . KA THLE EN PR OSPE R; T. RANSDA LL ; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T HE ST ATE OF C AL I F ORNI A,

R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s . N o. 11- 15048 D. C . No . 2 : 0 3 - c v - 0 1 1 6 6 - F C DK JN 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 o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia F r a nk C . D a m r e l l , S e ni orD 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 F e brua ry 13, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: T H O M A S , F IS H E R an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D a ni e l B e nj a m i n appe a l s the de ni a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on c ha l l e ngi ng hi s s t a t e c our tc onvi c t i ons f orpe tty the f

tw i th apr i or c o n v ic tio n a n d p o s s e s s io n o f e p h e d r in e o rp s e u d o e p h e d r in e w ith in te n t to ma n u f a c tu r e me th a mp h e t a mi n e . W e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED JU L 09 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSB e n

ja m in a s s e r ts th a t h e w a s d e n ie d h is r ig h t to a n im p a r tia l ju ry a n d th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f

f e c tiv e f o rh is f a ilu r e to e x e r c is e ap e r e m p to ry c h a lle n g e to e xc l ude a n a l l e ge dl y bi a s e d j ur or , “ N o. 8025. ” D ur i ng voi rdi r e , the f ol l ow i ng col l oq uy t oo k p l ac e betw ee n the prosecut or and the j uror: Q : C oul d y ou s i ta n d h ear t h i s c a s e on the f a c t s tha tw e pr e s e nta nd the e vi de nc e tha tw e pr e s e nta nd notthi nk abou t yourm i c r ow a ve a nd y our do or? A : N o . B ecau se i t s l i k e o n ce yo u g et t o a cert ai n p o i n t I h at e t o s a y it, he ’ s ki nd of m a de i t he r e . T o m e i f he ’ s m a de i the r e , he ’ s e i the rrunni ng w i th th e w ro n g g ro u p th atare d o i n g th ato r h e’ s g u i l ty. Q : W ou l d y o u b e ab l e t o s i t h e r e a n d h e a r th e e v i d e n c e a n d i f I do not p r o v e th e c a s e , r e tu rn an o t g u ilty v e r d ic t? A : N o . B ec au se h e’s g o t strik es ag ain st h im alre ad y j u stb e c a u s e h e’s here . Q : J us tbe c aus e he gota rr e s t e d? A : Y e a h. Q : W oul d y ou a gr e e tha t e ve ry body i n thi s c ountry ha s the r i ght t o ha ve ac a s e p r o v e n a g a in s t th e m b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t? A : N o ti n al l cases. In cham bers , the att orneys chal l enged N o. 80 25 for c ause . T he tri al courtre j ec t ed the c ha l l e nge , s t a t i ng a n i ni t i a l c onc l us i on tha tN o. 8025 w a s a ns w e r i ng the qu es t i on s i n a spec i fi c m anner i n h op es of bei ng excuse d from the panel . N ei ther att o rn ey ex erci sed a p erem p t o ry ch al l en g e, an d N o . 8 0 2 5 w as p l aced o n th e j u ry. 1. R i gh t to a n Im pa rt i alJury . A st at e tri al court ’ s f

i nd i ng of i m part i al i ty i s “ pres um pt i vel y c orre ctun der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4[(e )( 1)] . ” Sm i th v . P hi l l i ps , 455 U . S . 209, 218 ( 1982) . H e r e , the tri al j u d g e, aft er o b serv i n g al l j u ro r co m m en t s an d b eh av i o rs, w as i n th e b est3

p o s itio n to ju d g e th e s in c e r ity o f N o . 8 0 2 5 ’s c la im s o f

p a r tia lity . U n d e rA E D P A , a habe a s pe t i t i one rbe a r s the he a vy bur de n of “ r e butt i ng the pr e s um pt i on of c o rr e c tn e s s b y c le a ra n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . B e n ja m in h a s n o t p r e s e n te d s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to m e e t th is b u r d e n . See U ni ted Stat es v. Q u i n tero -B a rra za , 78 F . 3d 1344, 1350 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . B e nj a m i n’ s r e l i a nc e on D y e rv . C alde r on , 1 5 1 F .3 d 9 7 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) , is m is p la c e d . D ye rw as n o t d e c id e d u n d e rA E D P A ’s d e f e r e n tia l s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w , a n d in a n y c a s e , D ye r i nvol ve d aj ur orf

e i gni ng i m pa r t i a l i ty i n or de rt o be s e a t e d on the j ury , r a the rtha n a ju r o r , lik e N o . 8 0 2 5 , f

e ig n in g b ia s in o r d e rto a v o id ju ry s e rv ic e . See G re en v. W h ite , 23 2 F . 3d 67 1, 67 7-78 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). 2 . I n e ffe c tiv e A s s is ta n c e o

f C o u n s e l. T o pr ove avi ol a t i on of

the S i xth A m e ndm e nt ’ s r e qui r e m e ntof e f f e c t i ve as sistan ce o f c o u n se l, a h ab ea s p etit io n erm u st es tab li sh th at (1 ) h is atto rn ey ’s r e pr e s e nt a t i on f

e l l be l ow a n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of r e a s onabl e ne s s a nd ( 2) butf or hi s a tt orne y ’ s e rr or s , the r e i s ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha tthe r e s ul tof the p r o c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. Se e Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 4 6 6 U . S. 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 -8 8 (1 9 8 4 ). B ec au se re as o n ab le ex p lan atio n s e x isted fo r c o u n se l’ s deci si on no tt o exerci se a per em pt ory c hal l enge t o excuse N o. 80 25 , B enj am i n h as notm e thi s bur de n unde rthe “ doubl y de f e r e nt i a l ” A E D P A s t a nda r d of s how i ng4

tha tthe s t a t e c our tw a s obj e c t i ve l y unr e a s onabl e i n de ny i ng hi s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im . Y

a rb o ro u g h v. G en try , 54 0 U . S . 1, 6 (20 03 ); se e Str i c kland , 466 U . S . a t689- 90 ( “ [ A ] de f e nda ntm us tove r c om e the pr e s um pt i on tha t , unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s , the c ha l l e nge d a c t i on ‘ m i ghtbe c ons i de r e d s ound tr i a l s tr a t e gy . ’ T he r e a r e c ount l e s s w a y s t o pr ovi de e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e i n a ny gi ven cas e. E ven the bestcr i m i nal defe nse a tt orneys w ou l d n otdefe nd a part i cul ar c l i e nti n the s a m e w a y . ” ( quot i ng Mi c he l v . L ouis i ana , 3 5 0 U .S . 9 1 , 1 0 1 ( 1 9 5 5 ) ) ) . H e r e , r e ta in in g N o . 8 0 2 5 m a y h a v e b e e n ar e a s o n ab le ta c tic a l d e c is io n b e c au s e , in a ddi t i on t o the tr i a l c our t ’ s s t a t e d a s s e s s m e nttha tN o. 8025’ s a ns w e r s w e r e m a de i n hope s of

be i ng e xc us e d, the r e c or d s how s he m a y ha ve ha rbor e d r e s e ntm e nt to w a r d la w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s . AF F I RME D.-1-

B enj am i n v. P rosper ; N o. 11- 15048 T H O M A S , C i r c ui tJ udge , di s s e nt i ng: T he S upr e m e C our tha s i ns truc t e d tha t“ the r e m e dy f ora l l e ga t i ons of

j ur or part i al i ty i s ahear i ng i n w hi ch a defe nd anthas the op po rtun i ty t o p rove actual bi as . ” Sm i th v . P hi l l i

ps , 45 5 U . S . 20 9, 21 5 (19 82 ). In thi s c as e, a j uror profess ed h is a c tu a l b ia s . H e to ld th e tr ia l c o u r t th a t h e w o u ld b e u n ab le to r e tu rn an o t g u ilty ve r di c te ve n i f

the s t a t e f

a i l e d t o pr ove i t s c a s e . B oth the gove rnm e nta nd the de f e ns e c ha l l e nge d the j ur orf orc aus e . H ow e ve r , the tr i a l c our tdi d nothol d a hear i ng . R ather, i tsi m pl y s pecul at ed thatthe j uror w as j usttry i ng t o avo i d j ury d u ty. T he r e a r e onl y tw o pos s i bi l i t i e s : the j ur orw a s a c tua l l y bi a s e d orthe j ur or w a s l y i ng t o the tr i a l c our t . E ve n unde rA E D P A ’ s de f e r e nt i a l r e vi e w , I c onc l ude thatthe tri al courterre d b y notho l di ng an evi dent i ary hea ri ng on the j uror’ s s el fe x p r e s s e d a c tu a l b ia s . T he f a i l ur e of B e nj a m i n’ s c ouns e l t o m a ke ape r e m pt ory c ha l l e nge t o the j uror al so w arra nt s f

eder al habeas re l i ef

. T o b e s ure, defe nse c ou nsel i s perm i tt ed w id e la titu d e in m a k in g s tr a te g ic c h o ic e s . H o w e v e r , “[ a ]lth o u g h d e f e n s e c o u n s e l is e m p o w e r e d to m a k e s u c h s tr a te g ic d e c is io n s , Str i c kland dem ands thatsuch deci si on s be r ea sonabl e a nd i nform ed. ” Jen n i n gs v. W o o d f o rd , 290 F . 3d 1006, 

# FI LED JU L 09 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS-2-

10 14 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). T here i s a l so a di ff

er ence i n o ur re vi ew un der A E D P A as t o w hether a c ouns e l ’ s de c i s i on w a s s tr a t e gi c ornot . T he r e a r e tw o pot e nt i a l l y r e l e va nt i n q u i res: (1 ) “ [w ] h eth er th e st at e co u rtreaso n ab l y d et erm i n ed th atth ere w as a s tr a te g ic d e c is io n ” a n d ( 2 ) “w h e th e rth e s tr a te g ic d e c is io n its e lf w a s ar e a s o n ab le exer ci se of profes si on al j ud gm entun der Str i c kland . ” W oo d v. A l len , __U .S . __ , 13 0 S . C t . 84 1, 85 1 (20 10 ) . T here i s nothi ng i n the st at e c ou rtre cord t o i nd i ca t e thatdefe nse c ou nsel m a de as tr a t e gi c c hoi c e i n f a i l i ng t o m a ke ac ha l l e nge , a nd no s t a t e c our tm a de s u c h af in d in g . S o , w e a r e n o t f a c e d w ith th e q u e s tio n o f w h e th e rto d e f

e rto as ta te c o u r t f in d in g th a t ad e c is io n w a s ta c tic a l. T h u s, th e o n l y i ssu e b efo re u s i s “ w h eth er th e strat eg i c d eci si o n i t sel f w as a re as on abl e e xerc i se of profes si on al j ud gm entun der Str i c kland . ” I d. D efen se c o u n s e l h a d a lr e a d y s o u g h t th e ju r o r ’s r e m o v a l f o rc au s e f

o ra c tu a l b ia s . B e n

ja m in has c on t i nu ou sl y argued i n h i s s t at e a nd fe dera l courtpl ea di ng s thatthe j uror w as bi as ed. T he re cord i s devoi d o f a ny re as on abl e e xp l anat i on of w hy defe nse c ou nsel w ou l d al l ow a s el f- desc ri bed b i as ed j uror t o rem ai n o n the panel af t erhe st at ed that h e w o u ldb e u n ab le to re tu rn a n o t g u il ty v er d ict. A s a re su lto f th e trial co u n se l’ s f a i l ur e t o e xe r c i s e ape r e m pt ory c ha l l e nge , “ the j ury pa ne l c ont a i ne d a tl e a s tone-3-

j uror w ho w as bi as ed. ” D a vis v. W o o d f o rd , 3 8 4 F .3 d 6 2 8 , 6 4 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e r e f o r e , B e n ja m in is e n title d to f

e d e r a l h ab e a s r e lie f

. F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t.