N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
JEREM Y ALLEN W ESSELS, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. B . GOW ER , W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56957

D.C . No. 3:13-c v-0819-GPC -RB B
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gonz a lo P. C urie l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 2, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and GOULD, C irc uit Judge s a nd C HR ISTENSEN, ** C hie f Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r Je re m

y Alle n W e sse ls, a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls from the d istric t c o urt’ s de nia l of his pe t ition for a writ of ha

be a s c orpus. W e have 

# FIL ED D EC 28 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Da na L. C hriste nse n, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion.jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . As the pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, we do not re c ount the m he re . 1. W e a fford de fe re nc e unde r the Antite rrorism an d Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t (“ AEDPA” ) to the le ga l sta nda rd a p plie d by the C a l ifornia

C ourt of Appe a l (“ C ourt of Appe a l” ), a s it wa s not c ontra ry to c le arly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w a s de te rm i ne d by

the Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt. Se e 2 8 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). The C ourt of Appe a l a

p plie d a ba la nc ing te st, we ighing the re a sons for the prose c utoria l de la

y a ga inst a

ny pote ntia l pre

judic e . W e sse ls a

rgue s tha t Unite d State s v . Eight Thousand Eight Hundre d and Fifty

Dollars ($8,850) in U.S. C urre nc y , 461 U.S. 555, 563 (1983), re quire s a diffe re nt le g a l sta

nda rd. Howe ve r, we c onc lude tha

t this sta nda rd is dic tum

and not binding pre c e de nt for AEDPA purpose s . Se e Yarborough v . Alv arado , 541 U.S. 652, 660 (2004). 2. W e a lso a fford AEDPA de fe re nc e to the C ourt of Appe a l’ s de te rm ination of the fa c ts. Se e28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(2). TheC ourt of Appe a l did not “ pla inly
m isa p pre he nd or m issta

te the re c ord” in c ha

ra c te riz ing the e vide nc e an d the tria l
c ourt’ s c o nc lusions re g arding witne s s Ja m e s Sm i th. Milk

e v . Ry an , 711 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th C ir. 2013) (c ita tions omitte d). The tria l c ourt e xc lude d Sm ith’ s sta te m e nt a s spe c ulative he a rsay and note d tha

t it wa s not ne c e ssa

rily e xc ulpa tory . The C ourt of Appe a l a gre e d, a nd c o nc lude d tha

t othe r e vide nc e in the c a se re butte d -2-Sm i th’ s re c olle c t ion tha t he m ay have he ard David B inno a nd a fe m a le
a c qua inta nc e arguing a

t or shortly

a fte r 7:00 p.m . on the da

y of B inno’ s m

urde r. De te c tive R owe ’ s sta

te m e nt tha

t no e vide nc e c onne c te d W e sse ls a nd Franswa Sham m am to the m urde r if it oc c urre d la

te r in the da

y wa s not a

n
a c knowle dgm e nt by

R o we tha

t Sm ith’ s te stim ony

would e xc ulpa

te W e sse ls. R owe sta te d tha t he did not know W e sse l s’ and Sha m m am ’ s whe re a

bouts a t
a pproxim ate l y

7:00 p.m . on the night of the m urde r, not tha

t he kne wthe y

we re e lse whe re and the re fore c ould not ha ve c om m itte d a m

urde r at tha

t tim e . Unlike Sm ith’ s spe c ulative obse rvation tha t the individuals he ove rhe ard
m ay have be e n B inno a

nd a fe m a le a c qua inta

n c e , the prose c ution’ s witne ss Ka ra W a lte r re c o unte d he aring two popping sounds followe d by loud m usic at
a pproxim ate l y

4:30 p.m . on the da

y of the m urde r. 3. The C ourt of Appe a l re a sona bly c onc lude d tha

t the prose c ution’ s de la

y in indic ting W e sse ls wa s not purpose ly unde rtake n in orde r to c ure witne ss M o nic a B ihoue t’ s c re dibility issue s. W hile the de la

y in prose c uting W e sse ls ha d the e ffe c t of m inim iz i ng pote ntia l g rounds for im pe a c hing B i houe t, a

n d thus re sulte d

in som e pre j udic e to W e sse ls’ de fe nse , the e ffe c t wa s inc ide nta l to the prose c utor’ s le gitim ate re a sons for de la y . From the tim e B ihoue t c am e forward in he r initia l inte rvie w in 1996 through the tim e the prose c ution issue d c ha rge s in 2008, the -3-B inno m

urde r c a se c y c le d through a num be r of le a d inve stiga

tors a nd wa s subje c t to wha t a re a sona ble jurist c ould c o nc lude wa s a ste a d y e ffort on the pa

rt of la w e nforc e m e nt offic e rs a

nd prose c utors to de ve lop e v ide nc e . The prose c ution wa s not re quire d to file c ha

rge s the m om e nt B ihoue t initially c am e forward. Se e Unite d State s v . Lov asc o , 431 U.S. 783, 795-796 (1977). 4. The C ourt of Appe a l re a sona bly de te rm ine d tha

t the pre -indic tm e nt de la

y did not pre

j udic e W e sse l s’ a

bility to pre se nt a

third-pa rty c ulpa b ility de fe nse . First, W e sse ls doe s not dispute tha t the prim ary

third-pa rty supporting this de fe nse , Sa l Aske r, wa s inc arc e rate d at the tim e of B inno’ s m

urde r, and W e sse ls c onc e de s that he ne ve r sugge s te d Aske r him se lf wa s re sponsible for the killing. Se c ond, while W e sse ls c l a im e d tha t Aske r m ay

have inform ation a

bout B i nno’ s c onne c tions to drug traffic king a nd possible

drug tra ffic k e rs, he ne ve r provide d the tria l c ourt with a

ny “ dire c t or c irc um sta

ntia l e vide nc e linking [Asker] to the a c tua l pe rpe t rat ion of” B inno’ s m

urde r. Pe oplev . Hall , 718 P.2d 99, 104 (C a l. 1986). Fina lly , Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt doe s not support W e sse l s’ argum e nt tha t the prose c ution should ha

ve file d c ha

rge s during thepe riod be twe e n B ihoue t c om ing forward in 1996 a

n d Aske r’ s m

urde r in 1997. S

e e Lov asc o , 431 U.S. a

t 791 (“ [P] rose c utors a

re unde r no duty

to file c ha

rge s a s soon a s proba

ble c a use e xists but be fore the y

are satisfie d the y

will bea b le to e sta

b lish thesuspe c t ’ s guilt -4-be y ond a re a sona b le doubt. To im

pose suc h a

duty would ha ve a de le te rious e ffe c t both upon the

rights of thea c c use d a

nd upon thea

b ility of soc i e ty

to prote c t itse lf.” ) (c ita

t ions omitte d). 5. B e c a

use inve stiga

tors c onsiste ntly

e nga ge d with theB inno m urde r inve stiga tion during the

de la y pe riod, the C ourt of Appe a l did not m i sa ppre h e nd or
m issta te the re c ord whe n it c onc lude d tha t the re we re le gitim ate re a sons for the de la y . The re c ord re a sona

bly supports the

c onc lusion tha

t De te c t ive s Se rrite lla , Goldbe rg, a

nd Sc ully worke d dilige ntly

on the c a se be twe e n 1996 a nd 2006, a

nd that it wa s only

whe n witne ss Da

vid Abda la

c am e forward in 2006 tha t c ha rge s we re wa rrante d
. 6. W e de c line to issue a c e rtific ate of a

ppe a la bility on the unc e rtifie d issue
ra ise d in W e s se ls’ brie fs. Se e 9th C ir. R . 22-1. AFFIRM E D.

-5-