N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OB ER T B . STANFOR

D III, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. C HARLES L. R

YAN a nd ATTOR

NEY GENER AL OF THE STATE OF AR IZONA, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-16652 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00175-JAT
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jam e s A. Te ilborg, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

15, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , GOULD, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. In 2008, a n Ariz ona jury c onvic te d pe titione r R obe rt Sta n ford of se c ondde gre e m urde r. At tria l, Sta

nford a dm itte d to shooting the vic t im but c la im e d he
a c te d in se lf-de fe nse . The sta te tria l c ourt se nte n c e d Sta nford to 18 y e ars in sta

te 

# F IL ED
MAY15 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.prison. Following unsuc c e ssful dire c t a nd post-c onvic tion a

p pe a ls, Sta

n ford pe titione d for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus in theUnite d State s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz ona

unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254, c la im ing ine ffe c t ive a s sista nc e of his tria l c ounse l in viola

tion of Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The distric t c o urt de nie d Sta

n ford’ s pe tition, a

n d Sta nford a ppe a le d. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. W e re vie w the de nia l of a pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus de novo. Brodit v . C

ambra , 350 F.3d 985, 988 (9th C ir. 2003). Our re vie w of a ha be a s pe tition perta ining to a

sta te c ourt c rim ina l c onvic tion is governe d by the Antite rrorism

and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C . § 2254. Unde r AEDPA, we re vie w the la st re a s one d sta te c ourt de c ision, a

nd we
m ay grant a ha be a s pe tition only

if the sta te c ourt’ s de c i sion “ (1) re sulte d in a de c ision tha

t wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le 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 of the Unite d State s; or (2) re sulte d in a

de c ision tha

t wa s ba se d on a

n unre a s ona

ble de te rm ination of the fa c t s in light of the

e vide nc e pre se nte d in theState c ourt proc e e ding.” W oods v

. Sinc lair , 764 F.3d 1109, 1120 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)). To de m onstra

te ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l, a

pe titione r m

ust show tha

t (1) c o unse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt, a nd (2) c ounse l’ s de fic ie nt pe rform anc e
2pre

j udic e d the pe titione r. Stric k land, 466 U.S. a

t 687. Judic ia l re vie w of c la im s of ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l unde r AEDPA is “ doubly de fe re ntia l.” Yarborough v . Ge ntry , 540 U.S. 1, 6 (2003) (per c uriam ). Whe n re vie wing a Stric k land c la im

unde r AEDPA, the que stion is “ whe t he r the re is a

re a sona ble
argum e nt tha

t c ounse l sa

tisfie d Stric k

land ’ s de fe re ntia l sta

nda rd, suc h tha

t the sta te
c ourt’ s re je c tion of the[ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of c ounse l] c la im

wa s not a

n
unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of Stric k

land .” Murray

v . Sc hriro , 746 F.3d 418, 465–66 (9th C ir. 2014) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ). Stanford’ s Stric k

land c la im

re sts upon his tria

l c ounse l’ s fa ilure to c a ll to te stify or form a lly inte rvie w the a lle ge d sole e y e witne ss to theshooting, She ikh Aja m u. Ac c ording to Aja

m u’ s post-tria l a ffidav it—

writte n ne arly

four y e ars a fte r the s hooting—

Aja m u’ s te s tim ony

would ha ve c orroborate d Sta

nford’ s ve rsion of
e ve nts a nd supporte d his c la im

tha t he a c te d in se lf-de fe nse . Em a il e xc ha n ge s be twe e n Sta

nford’ s tria l c ounse l a

nd his ha be a s c ounse l indic ate tha

t tria l c ounse l spoke with Aja

m u on thre e oc c a sions, but c o nc lude d tha t Aja m u’ s te stim ony would be m ore ha

rm ful tha n he lpful. To prove de fic ie nt pe rform anc e , the c om pla ining de fe nda

nt “ m ust show tha

t
c ounse l’ s re pre se ntat ion fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a sona

ble ne ss.” Stric k land, 466 U.S. a

t 688. “An attorne y

ne e d not pursue an inve stiga tion tha t
3would be fruitle ss, m uc h le ss one tha

t m ight be ha

rm ful to thede fe nse .” Harrington v
. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 108 (2011). He re , the Ariz o na C ourt of Appe a ls re a sona bly c onc l ude d tha

t Sta nford’ s tria l c ounse l m a de a

ta c tic a l de c ision not to furthe r inve stiga

te Aja m u ’ s c l a im s, be c a use Aja m u’ s te s tim ony

m ight ha ve furthe r highlighte d the inc onsiste n c ie s in Stan ford’ s e ve r-c ha

nging ve rsion of e ve nts. Sta nford’ s a c c ount of wha

t oc c urre d diffe re d in m any

re s pe c ts from

his initia l inte rvie w with polic e to his trial te stim ony . Furthe r, Stanford’ s tria l c ounse l sta te d tha t whe n Aja m u initially
c onta c te d him

his a c c ount diffe re d from Sta nford’ s story

at the tim e , a

nd the inform at ion Aja

m u offe re d did not e xc ulpa te Stan ford. Se eStric k

land, 466 U.S. a

t 689 (a n attorne y ’ s de c ision m

ust be “ e va luate [d] . . . from c ounse l’ s pe rspe c tive at the t im e ” of the de c ision, “ e lim inat[ing] the distorting e ffe c ts of hindsight” ). The re fore , Sta

nford ha s fa ile d t o show tha t the Ariz ona

C ourt of Appe a ls wa s
unre a s ona

ble in c o nc l uding tha

t his trial c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s not de fic ie nt unde r Stric k

land
. Eve n if Sta

nford c ould show de fic ie nt pe rform anc e , his Stric k land c la im would still fa

il unde r the pre

j udic e prong. Sta

nford m ust show tha

t but for
c ounse l’ s pe rform an c e , it is “re a sona bly like ly the re sult would ha

ve be e n diffe re nt.” Ric hte r , 562 U.S. a t 111 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d).
4If Ajam u ha d te stifie d, his te stim ony like ly would not ha

ve ove rc om e the gove rnm e nt’ s phy sic a l e v ide n c e inc ulpa ting Sta nford. “ [I] ne ffe c tive a ssista nc e
c la im s ba se d on a

duty to inve stiga

te m ust be c onside re d in light of the stre ngth of the g ove rnm e nt’ s c a se . ” Eggle s ton v . Unite d State

s , 798 F.2d 374, 376 (9th C ir. 1986). The gove rnm e nt’ s e vide nc e re fute d m u c h of Sta

nford’ s te stim o ny , whic h Aja m u’ s te s tim ony

would like ly

have purporte dly

supporte d. Pa

rtic ula rly , Aja m u would ha ve te stifie d tha

t: (1) the vic tim jum

pe d onto thec ar; (2) the vic tim
atta c k e d Sta nford through the

window; (3) Sta

nford a nd the vic tim be ga

n tugging
at the gun; a

nd (4) the gun disc ha

rge d m ultipletim e s during thestruggle . At tria l , the g ove rnm e nt showe d tha t: (1) no da

m a ge wa s found on the

ve hic le , sugge sting
no one ha d jum

pe d on it; (2) no ev ide n c e wa s found on the c ar or on the vic tim ’ s body to indic ate the vic tim

wa s in c lose proxim ity

whe n he wa s shot; a

nd (3) ha d the v ic tim be e n holding the gun a s de s c ribe d whe n it wa s fire d, the gun would not have be e n a ble to fire a ga i n, be c a

u se the she ll would not ha ve dispe nse d a

nd the
c ham be r would not ha

ve re l oa de d. Thus, e ve n ha d Aja

m u te stifie d a s he c la im e d he would, his te s tim ony would have be e n re fute d by

the gove rnm e nt’ s phy sic a l e v ide nc e . B e c a use it is not

“ re a sona bly like ly the re sult would ha

v e be e n diffe re nt” ha d Aja m u te stifie d, the Ariz ona C ourt of Appe a ls wa s not unre a sona ble in c onc luding tha

t Sta nford fa ile d
5to show ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l unde r Stric k land
. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. a t 111 (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of Sta nford’ s ha

be a s pe tition is AFFIRM E D
.

6