N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DANTE HANALEI PATTISON,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OLE M ORR O W ; A T TOR NEY GENER AL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-16455 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00315-KJD-PAL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Ke nt J. Da

wson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 12, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd PIER SOL, ** Distric t Judge
. This ha

be a s a ppe a l a rise s from Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt Da nte Pa ttison’ s Ne va da sta te c onvic tions for thre e c ounts of m urde r an d one c ount of 

# FIL ED

OCT 31 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble La wre nc e L. Pie rsol, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of South Da

k o ta , sitting by

de signa tion.m ansla

u ghte r. Pa ttison ple a de d not guilty by re a son of insa

nity . Pattison a

rgue s that the prose c ution viola

te d his Fifth a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e n t rights by using
e vide nc e from his sta

y at a m e nta l he a lth fa c ility to prove that Pattison wa s sa ne at the t im e of the killings. The distric t c ourt de n ie d the pe tition. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 2253, a nd we a ffirm
. At tria l, Pattison c a lle d e xpe rt witne sse s to te stify tha t he suffe re d from

a form of sc hiz ophre nia

tha t would induc e de lusions. The e xpe rts re lie d on re c ords from Pa ttison’ s roughly

twe nty -m onth sta

y at the m e nta l he a lth fa c ility , whe re Pa ttison ha d be e n

e v a luate d to de te rm ine c om pe te nc y to sta

nd tria l. The prose c ution c ounte re d Pattison’ s de fe nse by c a l ling sta ff from

the m e nta l he a lth fa c i lity and its own e xp e rt, who ha d e xam ine d the fa c ility re c ords. The prose c ution re l ie d on the se witne sse s to a rgue tha t Pattison’ s de lusions a

t the tim e of the killings were c a

use d b y drug use , ra the r tha

n sc hiz o phre nia
. The Ne va d a

Supre m e C ourt’ s 2007 de c ision a ffirm ing Pa ttison’ s c onvic tion
wa s not c ontra

ry to, or a n unre a sona

b le a pplic a tion of, c le arly

e s ta blishe d fe de ra l la w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Unite d State s Supre m e C o urt; nor wa s it 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 n te d in the sta te c ourt proc e e ding. Se e 2 8 U.S.C . § 2254(d). Pa ttison’ s Fifth Am e ndm e n t c la i m fa ils be c a use Pa ttison’ s re l ia

nc e on re c ords from the m e nta l he a lth fa c i lity to prove his
2insa

nity justifie d the prose c ution’ s re lia

n c e on suc h

e vide n c e to re but the insa nity de fe nse . Se e Buc h anan v . K e n tuc k y , 483 U.S. 402, 422–23 (1987). Pa ttison’ s due proc e s s c la im

is tha t the e v ide nc e from the m e nta l he a lth fa c ility should ha

v e be e n e xc lude d a s e xc e ssive ly pre judic ia l. This is fore c lose d by this c o urt’ s 2009 de c ision in Holle

y v . Yarborough , whe re we c onc lude d tha t the Supre m e C ourt of the U nite d State s “ ha s not y e t m a de a c le ar ruling tha

t a dm ission of irre le va

n t or
ove rtly pre judic ia l e vide nc e c onstitute s a due proc e ss viola

tion suffic ie nt to
warra n t issua

nc e of the writ.” 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th C ir. 2009). Pa ttison a l so a

rgue s tha t his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e are inva lid be c a use the prose c ution took adva

nta ge of Pattison’ s post-a rre st sile nc e , in viola

tion of the Fifth a nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts. Eve n a ssum ing tha t Pattison a de q

uate ly ra ise d this c la im be low, he c annot pre va il on them e rits. His c la im is tha t e ve n if the sta te
c an re ly on re c o rds from

the m e nta l he a lth fa c i lity to show wha

t Pa ttison sai d or did during the

e va luation, se e Buc hanan , 483 U.S. a t 422–23, it c annot re ly

on what the re c o rds show he did not sa y or do. No c l e arly e sta

b lishe d la w supports
m aking this distinc

tion. Pa ttison’ s re lia

nc e on W a inw r ight v . Gre e nfie ld , 474 U.S. 284 (1986) , i s m ispla c e d. Gre e nfie ld d id not involve a situa tion whe re the prose c ution re l ie d on e vide nc e tha t ha d a lre a dy be e n use d by the de fe nse to a rgue insa nity . The Ne va da

Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in this c a se wa s the re fore not

3c ontra

ry to, or a n unre a sona

ble a pplic a tion of, Gre e nfie l

d or a ny othe r Supre m e C ourt la w. The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d Pattison’ s ha

be a s pe tition. AFFIRM E D
.

4Pattison v . Morrow

No. 15-16455 Judge N.R . Sm ith, c onc urring in pa rt a nd c onc urring in thejudgm e nt: I join them a

jority with re spe c t to its a

na ly sis a nd disposition of Pa

ttison’ s Fifth a nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt c la im s re lating to the introduc tion of e vide nc e from his sta y a t t he m e nta l he a lth fa c ility
. I do not join its a n a ly sis of Pa

ttison’ s c la im tha t his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e are inva lid be c a use the prose c ution took
a dva nta ge of Pa ttison’ s post-a rre st sile nc e , in viola

t ion of the Fifth a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts. I would de c line to re a c h the m e rits of this c la im
. Pa ttison ra ise d this c la im in the sta te c ourts a

nd in thedistric t c ourt within the c onte xt of a n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la i m . He ne ve r ple a d e d this c la im inde p e n de nt of his ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e of c ounse l c la im , a s he now doe s on a p pe a l. W e de c line d to gra

nt Pattison a c e rtific a te of a p p e a la b ility on a ny of his ine ffe c t ive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im s. The re fore , this c la im is not prope rly

be fore us. 

# FIL ED OCT 31 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1