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.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 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 F R AN K D AR E L L VA UG HN , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. J . S. W O O D FO RD ; BI LL LO CK Y ER, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 55828 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 4 8 3 - J MWMC 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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e f f r e y T . M i l l e r , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J anuary 7, 2013 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: K O Z IN S K I, C h i ef Ju d g e, M cK E O W N an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F rank V augh n app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on for habeas c o rp u s . V au g h n a r g u e s th a t th e r e w a s n o m a n if e s t n e c e s s ity f

o ram is tr ia l in h is 

# FI LED JAN 10 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

f i r s ttr i a l be c aus e he w a s w i l l i ng t o w a i ve hi s a tt orne y ’ s a s s e rt e d c onf l i c tof in te r e s t. U n d e rA E D P A , th e q u e s tio n b e f o r e u s is “n o t w h e th e rth e tr ia l ju d g e s h o u ld ha ve de c l a r e d am i s tr i a l . I ti s note ve n w he the ri tw a s a n abus e of di s c r e t i on f

or her t o h ave don e s o— the appl i cabl e s t andard on di re ctre vi ew . ” R e n ic o v . L e tt , 13 0 S . C t . 18 55 , 18 62 (201 0). R ather, the qu es t i on i s w hether the C al i forni a C ou rt of A pp ea l ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe tri al courtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on w as

“ ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s ” orw a s “ c ontr a ry t o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d); R eni co , 13 0 S . C t . at18 62 . U nd erS up re m e C ou rtprec edent , i n cas es w here a m i stri al i s order ed ov era def endant ’ s obj ec t i on , re tri al i s perm i ss i bl e onl y i f there is “m an if e s t n e c e s s ity ” f

o rth e m is tr ia l. A r i

z ona v . W

as hi ngton , 434 U . S . 497, 505 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . A lth o u g h ad e f e n d a n t m a y w a iv e th e r ig h t to c o n f lic t- f r e e c o u n s e l, H ol low ay v . A rkans as , 43 5 U . S . 47 5, 48 3 n . 5 (19 78 ), a tri al courthas “ subst ant i al l at i tud e” t o ref

use adefe nd ant ’ s w ai ver of c on fl i ct s of i nt er es tw here there i s an a c tu a l o rp o te n tia l c o n f

lic t. W he at v. U ni ted Stat es , 4 8 6 U .S . 1 5 3 , 1 6 3 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . C ou rt s have “ an i nd ependenti nt er es ti n ensuri ng thatcr i m i nal tri al s are cond uct ed3

w ith in th e e th ic a l s ta n d a r d s o f th e p r o f e s s io n a n d th a t le g a l p r o c e e d in g s ap p e a rf a ir t o al l w ho ob se rve them . ” I d. a t 1 6 0 . F a c e d w ith V au g h n ’s a tto rn e y ’s a s s e rtio n th a t h e h a d a n “o b v io u s c o n f lic t” a nd c oul d notgo f

orw a r d, the tr i a l c ourtc a r e f ul l y c ons i de r e d S upr e m e C ourta nd other prec edent , appo i nt ed confl i ct s c ou nsel (w ho agre ed w i th V augh n’ s ori gi nal att orney thata m i stri al w as i n V augh n’ s bes ti nt er es t ), hear d from the part i es m ul t i pl e t i m e s , a nd c ons i de r e d a l t e rna t i ve s t o am i s tr i a l . T he C a l i f orni aC ourtof A p p ea l’ s d eter m in atio n th at th e trial co u rt “h ad th e d iscr etio n to re ject V au g h n ’s proffe re d w ai ver of hi s r i gh tt o con fl i ct -f re e c ou nsel and t o d ec l ar e am i stri al base d on l egal nece ss i ty, even ov erV augh n’ s obj ec t i on ” w as nei ther “ base d o n an unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s , ” norw a s i ta n “ unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of . . . cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1). AF F I RME D.