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 and 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.

Th e H o n o r ab l e Ra l p h R. Be i s t l i n e , Ch i e f D i s tr i c tJ u d g e f

o rth e U . S. ** * D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 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 G REG G L. BA RN ES, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. V . M . A L M A G E R , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56439 D . C. N o . 5 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 5 8 9 - A G - RC 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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A ndr e w J . G ui l f

or d, D 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 M a r c h 7, 2013 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T H O M A S and H U R W IT Z , C i rc ui tJudg es , and B E IS T L IN E , C hi ef D i stri ctJudg e. *** G r e gg B a rne s appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of habe a s c orpus r e l i e f

on f ourf e de r a l c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s c ha l l e ngi ng hi s C a l i f orni ac onvi c t i on f

or 

# FI LED MA Y23 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSB arn es d i d n o tw ai v e h i s B at s on c la im b yf

a ilin g to tim e lyo b

je c t a t tr ia l. 1 T he re cord ref

l ec t s thatdefe nse c ou nsel ra i se d the i ss ue before the j ury w as sw orn and the tri al j ud ge un ders t oo d d ef ense coun se l ’ s obj ec t i on t o b e a B at s on m o tio n . T h is is a d e q u a te to p r e s e rv e th e c la im . Se e U ni te d State s v . C ontr e r as - C ontr e r as , 83 F . 3d 11 03 , 11 04 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed) ( ho l di ng that“ a B at s on o b je c tio n m u s t b e m a d e a s s o o n a s p o s s ib le , a n d p r e f e r ab lyb e f

o r e th e ju ryis s w o rn ” ) . W e a ls o a g r e e w ith th e p a rtie s th a t B a rn e s e x h au s te d th is c la im b y“f a ir ly p r e s e n tin g ” it in h is f

in a l h ab e a s p e titio n to th e C a lif o rn iaS u p r e m e C o u rt. Scot t v. Sch ri ro , 567 F . 3d 573, 582 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( c i t i ng I ns y x i e ngm ayv . M

or gan , 403 F .3 d 6 5 7 , 6 6 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ) . 2 m a nuf a c tur i ng m e tha m phe t a m i ne a nd pos s e s s i ng e phe dr i ne orps e udoe phe dr i ne w i th i nt e ntt o m a nuf

a c tur e m e tha m phe t a m i ne . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . §§ 12 91 , 22 53 . B ec ause the C al i forni a c ou rt s di d n oti ss ue a r ea soned de c i s i on on B a rne s ’ c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s , w e m us t“ pe r f orm a n ‘ i nde pe nde nt r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d ’ to a s c e rta in w h e th e rth e s ta te c o u rt d e c is io n w a s o b je c tiv e ly un re as on abl e. ” Hi m e s v . T hom ps on , 336 F . 3d 848, 853 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng D e lg a do v . L e w is , 223 F . 3d 976, 982 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ) . W e a f f i rm the j udgm e ntof th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. I T h e C al i fo rn i a S u p rem e C o u rtd i d n o tu n reaso n ab l y ap p l y B at son v. Kentucky , 4 7 6 U . S . 7 9 (1 9 8 6 ), i n rej ect i n g B arn es’ cl ai m th atth e p ro secu t o r’ s u se o f p e r e mp t o ry s tr i k e s v i o l a t e d th e Eq u a l Pr o t e c t i o n Cl au s e . 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . T h e r e c o r d f a ir lys u p p o rts th e c o n c lu s io n th a t B a rn e s f a ile d to 13

e s tab lis h ap r im af

a c ie c a s e o f

r a c ia l d is c r im in a tio n . J ohns on v . Fi nn , 665 F . 3d 1 0 6 3 , 1 0 7 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) . A s s u c h , th e A n tite rr o r is m a n d E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t o f

1 9 9 6 ( “A E D P A ” ) b a r s r e lie f . See C ul len v. P i nh ol

ster , 1 3 1 S . C t. 1 3 8 8 , 1 3 9 8 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ( h o ld in g th a t r e v ie w u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) “is lim ite d to th e r e c o r d th a t w a s b e f

o r e th e s ta te c o u rt th a t a d ju d ic a te d th e c la im o n th e m e r its ” ) . O urde c i s i on i n B oy d v . N e w land , 467 F . 3d 1139 ( 9th C i r . 2004) , doe s not di c t a t e ac ontr a ry r e s ul t . U nl i ke i n B oyd , th e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e s ta te c o u rts d e n ie d B a rn e s ’ r e q u e s t f o rac o m p le te tr a n s c r ip t o f v o ird ir e , c

f. id. a t1142 ( not i ng th a t C a lif

o rn iaC o u rt o f

A p p e a l d e n ie d B o y d ’s th r e e e x p lic it r e q u e s ts to s uppl e m e ntthe r e c or d w i th the e nt i r e voi rdi r e tr a ns c r i pt ) , a nd B a rne s c i t e s no author i ty— l e ta l one ahol di ng of the U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C ourt

— f orthe p ro p o si t i o n th ata st at e co u rten t ert ai n i n g a co n st i tu t i o n al cl ai m rai sed fo r th e fi rst t i m e i n a habeas pet i t i on m ustorder the preparat i on of a c om pl et e voi r di re tr a n s c r ip t s u a s

p o n te . See S ta n ley v. Sch ri ro , 598 F . 3d 612, 617 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( a f f i rm i ng tha t , unde rA E D P A , “ c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d f e de r a l l a w ” r e f

e r s t o the h o ld in g s o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u rt) . II T he C a l i f

orni aS upr e m e C ourtr e a s onabl yr e j e c t e d B a rne s ’ c l a i m tha tthe pr os e c ut orvi ol a t e d hi s r i ghtt o due pr oc e s s byvouc hi ng f orthe c r e di bi l i tyof4

gove rnm e ntw i tne s s e s a ttr i a l . W e a gr e e w i th B a rne s tha tthe pr os e c ut or im p e rm is s ib lyv o u c h e d f o rth e c r e d ib ilityo f

s e v e r a l p o lic e w itn e s s e s , a s h is a s s ur a nc e s tha tthe y t e s t i f i e d “ hone s t l y ” pl a c e d “ the i m pr i m a turof the G o v ern m en t ” o n th ei r v eraci ty i n a m an n er th atri sk ed “ i n d u c[i n g ] th e j u ry t o tru st the G ov ernm ent ’ s j ud gm entra ther than i t s ow n v i ew of the evi dence. ” U ni ted State s v . Y

oung , 47 0 U . S . 1, 18 -19 (19 85 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). H ow ever , p ro secu t o ri al v o u ch i n g ri ses t o th e l ev el o f co n st i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n o n l y i f i t“ ‘ so i nf e c t [ s ] the tr i a l w i th unf

a i rne s s a s t o m a ke the r e s ul t i ng c onvi c t i on ade ni a l of due proces s. ’ ” D arde n v . W ai nw r i ght , 477 U . S . 168, 181 ( 1986) ( quot i ng D on nel l y v . D eCh risto

f o ro , 416 U . S . 637, 643 ( 1974) ) . P r os e c ut or i a l vouc hi ng doe s not vi ol at e due process w here the “ re m arks w er e ‘ i nv i t ed’ [by def ense coun se l ’ s a tt ac k on the c r e di bi l i ty of

gove rnm e ntw i tne s s e s ] , a nd di d no m or e tha n r e s pond s u b s ta n tia llyin o r d e rto ‘r ig h t th e s c a le ’. . . .” ) . Y oung , 4 7 0 U .S . a t 1 2 - 1 3 ( f o o tn o te o m itte d ) . T h e r e c o r d r e f

le c ts th a t th e p r o s e c u to r ’s s ta te m e n ts d ir e c tlyr e s p o n d e d to defe nse c ou nsel ’ s a tt ac ks, “ re nd er i ng i tun l i kel y thatthe j ury w as l ed as tray. ” I d. a t 1 2 ( f o o tn o te o m itte d ) . T h u s , w e c a n n o t s a yth a t it w a s o b je c tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le f o rth e s ta te c o u rt to f

in dn o d u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n .

II I5

T he s t a t e c ourta l s o r e a s onabl yr e j e c t e d B a rne s ’ c l a i m tha tthe tr i a l j udge vi ol at ed hi s r i gh tt o d ue process by coer ci ng a ver di ct . A s the di stri ctcourt corr ec t l y f

ou nd , there i s no evi dence of coer ci on i n the re cord, l etal on e proof that th e tr ia l ju d g e ’s c o n d u c t “‘h a d as u b s ta n tia l a n d in ju r io u s e f

f e c t o rin f lu e n c e in det erm i ni ng the j ury’ s ver di ct . ’ ” W e av e rv . T

hom ps on , 19 7 F . 3d 35 9, 36 5 (9th C i r. 1999) ( quot i ng B r e c ht

v . A br aham s on , 50 7 U . S . 61 9, 63 7 (19 93 )) . N e ith e rth e tr ia l ju d g e ’s in s tru c tio n th a t th e ju ryf o r e p e r s o n r e tu rn to del i bera t i on s a ft erher c ol l oq uy w i th the j ud ge, no r hi s s ub se qu enti nstruct i on that the j ury r ec on vene ata s peci fi ed t i m e the fol l ow i ng m orni ng , const i tut ed an i n stru ct i o n t o reach a v erd i ctd esp i t e an i m p asse i n d el i b erat i o n s. E v en i f th ese a d m o n is h m e n ts c o u ld b e r e a d a s in s tru c tio n s to c o n tin u e d e lib e r a tin g , th a t w o u ld n o t e s tab lis h ad u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n . L ow e nf i e ld v . P he l

ps , 484 U . S . 231, 237 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; P a rke rv . Sm a ll , 6 6 5 F .3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . S i m i l a r l y , B a rne s ha s nots how n tha tthe tr i a l j udge ’ s e x pa rt e c ont a c tw i th a j uror vi ol at ed hi s r i gh tt o d ue process . T o est abl i sh a due process vi ol at i on , B arnes m u s t d e m o n s tr a te b o th ac o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n a n d p r e ju d ic e . Sm i th v. C u rry , 580 F . 3d 1071, 1085 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( c i t i ng R u s h e n v . S p a in , 464 U . S . 114, 117 (198 3) (percuri am )) . E ven ass um i ng thatthe tri al j ud ge’ s c on du ctw as6

unc ons t i tut i ona l , the j ur orw a s pr om pt l yr e pl a c e d a nd the r e i s no e vi de nc e of p r e ju d ic e . F in a lly , B a rn e s f

a ils to id e n tif

yS u p r e m e C o u rt au th o r ityto s u p p o rt h is s u g g e s tio n th a t th e s e in c id e n ts , w h ile n o t in d iv id u a llyc o e r c iv e , c o u ld c u m u la tiv e ly p r o d u c e ad u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n . IV T h e r e c o r d s u p p o rts ap lau s ib le c la im th a t B a rn e s ’ S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c ouns e l w a s vi ol a t e d w he n hi s a tt orne yr e f us e d t o m ove f

orane w tr i a l ba s e d on h is o w n in e f

f e c tiv e n e s s a n d th e tr ia l c o u rt f a ile d to m e a n in g f

u llyin v e s tig a te de f e ns e c ouns e l ’ s pot e nt i a l c onf l i c tof i nt e r e s t . H ow e ve r , w e a r e c ons tr a i ne d by A E D P A t o aff

i rm the deni al of re l i ef

, as there i s no cl earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw i m po si ng a duty of i nq ui ryon the tri al courtun der the ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e. I n Mi c ke ns v . T

ay lor , th e S u p r e m e C o u rt c la r if ie d th a t, to d a te , its S ix th A m endm entj uri sprudence re gardi ng att orney c on fl i ct s- of-i nt er es thas bee n l i m i t ed to th e s p e c ia l c ir c u m s ta n c e s r a is e d b yd e f e n s e c o u n s e l’s r e p r e s e n ta tio n o f m u ltip le c o - d e f e n d a n ts . 5 3 5 U .S . 1 6 2 , 1 7 5 - 7 6 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . C uy le rv . Sul l i v an , 446 U . S . 335 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , w h ic h e s tab lis h e d atr ia l c o u rt’s d u tyto in v e s tig a te c o n f lic ts o f w h ic h it is o rs h o u ld b e a w a r e , a n d a rtic u la te d a n e x c e p tio n f r o m th e r e q u ir e m e n t th a t a defe nd antshow prej ud i ce t o o bt ai n rel i ef fr om a S i xth A m endm entvi ol at i on , do es7

n o t c le a r lyap p lyo u ts id e th e m u ltip le - r e p r e s e n ta tio n c o n te x t. Se e Mi c ke ns , 535 U .S . a t 1 7 6 ( s ta tin g th a t Sul l i v an ’ s appl i c a t i on out s i de the m ul t i pl e - r e pr e s e nt a t i on cont exti s, “ as far a s the j uri sprudence of [the S up re m e C ou rti s] concerned, an o p e n q u e s tio n ” ) ; se e al

so E arp v. O rnoski , 431 F . 3d 1158, 1184 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( a c know l e dgi ng Mi c ke ns ’ l i m i t at i on of Sul l i v an ) . T hus , w e c a nnots a ytha tthe C al i forni a S up re m e C ou rt ’ s deni al of B arnes’ S i xth A m endm entcl ai m w as c ontr a ry t o, oran unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w . 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ; Cam

pb el l v. R i ce , 40 8 F . 3d 11 66 , 11 70 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( en banc). AF F I RME D.