N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. EDWARD R O NALD STAM PER ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-35517

D.C . Nos. 4:14-c v-00047-B M M 4:11-c r-00079-B M M -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na B ria n M
. M orris, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 25, 2019 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FAR

R IS, B EA, a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s. Edwa rd Stam pe r wa s c onvic te d of se xua l a buse in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2242(2)(B ). He now se e ks post-c onvic tion re lie f unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255 ba se d on
c la im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of tria l a

nd a ppe lla te c ounse l. He c o nte nds tha t his
c ounse l should ha

ve c ha lle nge d

the Ninth C irc uit’ s M ode l Jury Instruc tions, whic h 

# FIL ED N OV 18 2019 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.did not re quire the jury to find be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt tha

t he ha d knowle dge of the v ic tim ’ s inc a

pa c ity
. Se e M a

nua l of M ode l C rim ina l Jury Instruc tions for the Distric t C ourts of theNinth C irc uit § 8.172 (2010) (re quiring only that the de fe nda n t “ knowingly ” e nga ge d in a se xua l a c t with a

pe rson “p hy sic a lly

inc a pa ble of de c lining pa

rtic ipation in, or c om

m unic ating unwillingne ss to e nga g e in tha t
se xua l a c t” ); c

f. Unite d State

s v . Bruguie r , 735 F.3d 754, 758 (8th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ) (im posing a n a dditiona l sc ie n te r e le m e nt a nd re q u iring knowle dge of the vic t im ’ s inc a

pa c i t y ). A de fe nda

nt’ s Sixth Am e ndm e nt right to e ffe c tive c o unse l is de nie d whe n his c ounse l’ s re pre se ntation is both de fic ie nt a nd pre judic ia l. Stric k

l and v
. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The C ourt ne e d not a ddre ss both e le m e nts of the inquiry

if the de fe n da

nt fa ils to m e e t

his burde n on e ithe r prong. Gonzale z v . W ong , 667 F.3d 965, 987 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Stric k land, 466 U.S. a

t 697). Eve n if his trial a

nd a ppe lla te c ounse l we re de fic ie nt, Sta m pe r wa s not pre j udic e d by

the Distric t C ourt’ s fa ilure to givethe propose d jury instruc tion. To show pre judic e , Stam

pe r m ust show a “ re a sona

ble proba bility ” tha t the re s ult of the p roc e e ding would ha

ve be e n diffe re nt ha d c ounse l provide d e ffe c tive
a ssista nc e . Stric k

land, 466 U.S. a

t 694. Eve n if the instruc tion ha d be e n give n, the jury would ha ve re lie d on the obje c tive phy s ic a l e vide nc e of the vic tim ’ s
2intoxic at ion on thenight in que stion, Sta m pe r’ s own a dm ission tha

t the vic tim

wa s ve ry intoxic ate d on the night in que stion (c a lling he r an “ 8 out of 10”on a sc a le of intoxic at ion), the t e stim ony of the vic tim ’ s c o usin tha t he c arrie d the vic tim , who
wa s unre sponsive , to the be d room , a nd the e y e witne ss te stim o ny tha t the vic tim
wa s unc onsc ious whileStam pe r wa s ha

ving se x with he r. In voting to c onvic t Stam pe r, the jury

c re d i te d this te stim ony

and thus ne c e ssa

rily re je c t e d Sta m pe r’ s ve rsion of e ve nts—

that the vic tim

wa s the se xua l a ggre ssor a nd c onse nte d to se x. The re is no re a sona

b le proba bility that Sta

m pe r would ha

ve be e n found not guilty
e ve n with a

n a d ditiona l instruc t ion. Stam pe r a l so se e ks a C e rtific ate of Appe a la bility for an a d ditiona l ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e c la im tha t his la wy e r should ha

v e sought c e ll phonere c ords from the vic t im

and a witne ss. To obtain a

C OA unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c ), “ [t] he pe titione r m

ust de m onstra

te tha t re a sona ble jurists would find the

distric t c ourt’ s a sse ssm e nt of the c onstitutiona l c la im s de bata

ble or wrong.” S

lac k v . Mc Danie l , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Although this sta

nda rd is “ not a pa

rtic ula rly e xa c ting one ,” W

ilson v
. Be lle que , 554 F.3d 816, 826 (9th C ir. 2009), Sta m p e r c a nnot c le ar this low hurdle
. Stam pe r’ s tria l c ounse l m a de a re a sona b l e strate gic de c i sion to not pursue the inve stiga tion. “ [W ] he n a

de fe nda nt ha s give n c ounse l re a son to be l ie ve tha t
3pursuing c e rta i n inve stiga tions would be fruitle ss or e ve n ha rm ful, c o unse l’ s fa ilure to pursuethose inve stiga tions m ay not la t e r be c ha lle nge d a s unre a s ona ble .” Stric k land, 466 U.S. a

t 691. Thephone re c ords m ay have shown tha

t the vic tim
wa s a le rt (and thus not inc a p a c ita te d), but c ould we ll ha

ve c onta ine d inform ation injurious to Sta

m pe r’ s de fe nse . Sta

m pe r’ s tria l c ounse l c onside re d the possible
c onse q ue nc e s of suc h a

n inve stiga

tion a nd m a de a

re a sona b le strat e gic de c i sion to fore go inve stiga

tion. The Distric t C ourt’ s de c i sion is AFFIRM E D
. W e DE N Y the m otion to
e xpa nd the C e rtific ate of Appe a la bility
.

4