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. 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 S HA UN T AY J E R MAI NE WHE AT ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M CDAN I EL , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 17626 D. C . No . 3 : 0 6 - c v - 0 0 3 9 7 - L R HV PC 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da L a rry R . H i c ks , 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 J a nua ry10, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: H U G , S C H R O E D E R , an d R A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P et i t i on erS haun t ayJe rm ai ne W heat on (W heat on ) c hal l enges the di stri ct c o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f

h i s h ab e a s p e t i t i o n . W h e a t o n c o n t e n d s th a tth e N e v a d aSu p r e me C ourtunr e a s onabl y appl i e d Mi r anda v . A r i z ona , 384 U . S . 436 ( 1966) , i n hol di ng th a t h is c o n f

e s s io n w a s v o lu n ta ry . W h e a to n a ls o p o s its th a t h ab e a s r e lie f is 

# FI LED JAN 26 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

w arrant ed because of prosec ut ori al m i sc on du ctand i nstruct i on al error due t o an e rr one ous i m pl i e d m a l i c e j ury i ns truc t i on.

1. T h e N ev ad a S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s d eci si o n th atW h eat o n ’ s co n fessi o n w as vo l un t ary w as no tan un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of Mi r anda , a s th e N e v a d aSu p r e me C o u rtt o o k“ i n t o co n si d erat i o n th e t o t al i ty o f al l th e su rro u n d i n g ci rcu m st an cesbo th the chara ct er i st i cs of the ac cuse d and the det ai l s of the i nt errogat i on . ” D i cker son v. U ni ted Stat es , 53 0 U . S . 42 8, 43 4 (20 00 ) ( ci t at i on s and i nt ernal quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . M or e ove r , W he a t on’ s vol unt a rys t a t e m e ntt o a c orr e c t i ons a s s i s t a ntw a s a dm i s s i bl e i nde pe nde ntof w he the rW he a t on’ s c onf e s s i on w a s v o lu n ta ry . Se e Sale h v . Fle m i ng , 5 1 2 F .3 d 5 4 8 , 5 5 1 - 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . 2. G i ven the st at e tri al court ’ s i nstruct i on for the j ury t o d i sr egar d the pr os e c ut or ’ s B i bl i c a l r e f e r e nc e a nd the ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e a ga i ns tW he a t on, th e p ro secu t o r’ s i so l at ed B i b l i cal referen ce an d al l eg ed v o u ch i n g d i d n o t“ so i nf e c t [ ] 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. ” H

e i n v . Sul l i v an , 60 1 F . 3d 89 7, 91 2 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ; see a l so R h o a des v. H

en ry , 59 8 F . 3d 49 5, 51 0 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( “ W e pre sum e the j ury f ol l ow ed the court ’ s i nstruct i on s. ”) .3

3. T h e N ev ad a S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s ru l i n g th atth e i m p l i ed m al i ce i n stru ct i o n w as no tan i m perm i ss i bl e m andat ory pre sum pt i on w as re as on abl e. T he i m pl i ed m al i ce in s tru c tio n w a s ap e rm is s iv e in f e r e n c e th a t d id n o t r e lie v e th e p r o s e c u tio n o f its b u r d e n o f

p r o o f . Se e Fr a n c is v . Fr a n klin , 4 7 1 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 4 (1 9 8 5 ) ( “A p erm i ssi v e i n feren ce d o es n o trel i ev e th e S t at e o f i t s b u rd en o f p ersu asi o n b ecau se it s till r e q u ir e s th e S ta te to c o n v in c e th e ju ryth a t th e s u g g e s te d c o n c lu s io n s h o u ld be i nf e rr e d ba s e d on the pr e di c a t e f a c t s pr ove d. ” ) . B e c aus e the j uryf ound W h eat o n g u i l ty o f fi rstd eg ree m u rd er, th e i m p l i ed m al i ce i n stru ct i o n d i d n o t“ so i nf e c t [ ] the e nt i r e tr i a l tha tthe r e s ul t i ng c onvi c t i on vi ol a t e [ d] due pr oc e s s , thus re nd er i ng the tri al fund am ent al l y unfai r. ” T ow nsend v. Kno w les , 562 F . 3d 1200, 1 2 0 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( c ita tio n a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . AF F I RME D.