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 by9th 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 MAT T HE W J AME S KI NG , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. E . K. MC DA NI E L , Wa r d e n ; NE VA DA ATTORNEY GENERAL, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 17561 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 5 - c v - 0 0 1 2 8 - J C MV 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 J a m e s C . M a ha n, 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 D e c e m be r2, 2009 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , T H O M A S an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D e f e nda ntM a tthe w J a m e s K i ng appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 pe t i t i on f oraw r i tof

habe a s c orpus . W e a f

f i rm . B e c aus e the pa rt i e s a r e f

a m i l i a rw i th the f

a c tua l a nd pr oc e dur a l hi s t oryof thi s c a s e , w e w i l l not r e c o u n t it h e r e . 

# FI LED DE C 10 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2- I T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyd e te rm in e dth a t a n ye rr o ru n d e rs ta te la w in a d m ittin g D e te c tiv e S h e rw o o d ’s s ta te m e n ts o n th e c au s e o f H a ts a d y ’s in

ju r ie s d id n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f

ad u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n . T o v io la te d u e p r o c e s s , w r o n g ly adm i tt ed evi dence m ustbe “ so extre m el y unfai r thati t s a dm i ss i on vi ol at es f u n d a m e n ta l c o n c e p tio n s o f ju s tic e .” D ow l i ngv. U ni ted States , 493 U . S . 342, 352 (1 9 9 0 ) (q u o t at i o n m ark s an d ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). M o reo v er, an y erro r w as h arm l ess, as defe nse c ou nsel m i t i gat ed the ef fe ctof S herw oo d’ s t es t i m on y by s ec uri ng an a d m is s io n o n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n th a t H a ts a d y ’s in ju r ie s w e r e a ls o c o n s is te n t w ith havi ng al l er gi es , w eari ng cont ac t s, and d ri nk i ng al coho l . In addi t i on , m edi ca l r e c or d e vi de nc e s ubm i tt e d t o the j uryi nc l ude d anot a t i on f r om H a t s a dy ’ s tr e a t i ng ph ys i ci an S t ephen M usse hl i nd i ca t i ng thatshe s uffe re d “ ac ut e . . . [a ] sphyxi at i on . ” W e th u s c o n clu d e th at th e N ev ad a S u p re m e C o u rt’s re jectio n o f K in g ’s c la im w a s n e ith e r“c o n tr a ryto ,” n o r“a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f ,” c le a r ly es t abl i shed S up re m e C ou rtl aw . 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1). II T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yde ni e d K i ng’ s c ha l l e nge t o the s uf f i c i e nc yof

the evi dence s ust ai ni ng hi s c on vi ct i on s. “ A pet i t i on erfor afe dera l w ri tof habeas corpus fa ce s aheavy burden w hen chal l engi ng the suff i ci encyof the evi dence used- 3-

t o o bt ai n a st at e c on vi ct i on on fe dera l du e proces s groun ds. ” Juan H. v. A l len , 408 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 74 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). S uffi ci entevi dence s up po rt s aconv i ct i on i f, vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i gh tm ostfavo rabl e t o the prosecut i on , any r at i on al tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the c r i m e be y ond a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t. Se e J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 44 3 U . S . 30 7, 31 9 (19 79 ). “ A ft er A E D P A , w e app l y the st andards of J ac k s on w ith a n a d d itio n a l la y e ro f d e f e r e n c e .” J u a n H. , 408 F . 3d a t1274. K i ng a r gue s tha ti ns uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e e s t abl i s he d the s pe c i f i c - i nt e nte l e m e nt of a tt e m pt e d m ur de r . H ow e ve r , H a t s a dyt e s t i f i e d tha tK i ng s tr a ngl e d he rf r om be hi nd; tha the c ont i nue d t o do s o w hi l e s he r e s i s t e d, ba ngi ng he rhe a d a ga i ns tthe fl o o r an d b ed fram e, an d aft er sh e fei g n ed d eath ; an dth atsh e ev en tu al l y l o st consci ou snes s. H at sa dy al so t es t i fi ed thatshe aw ok e w i th a t el epho ne cord t i ed t i ght l ya r ound he rne c k. O n thi s e vi de nc e , ar a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound tha tK i ng s pe c i f

i c a l l yi nt e nde d t o ki l l he rbe y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt . A l though K i ng c ha l l e nge s the c r e di bi l i tyof H a t s a dy ’ s t e s t i m ony , w e m us tpr e s um e tha tthe ju ryr e s o lv e d a n yc o n f

lic ts in f a v o ro f th e p r o s e c u tio n a n dd e f e rto th a t r e s o lu tio n . See M cMi l lan v. G om ez , 1 9 F .3 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ; s e e a ls o Sc h lu p v . D e lo , 5 1 3 U .S . 2 9 8 , 3 3 0 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ( r e c o g n iz in g th a t th e c r e d ib ilityo f w itn e s s e s is g e n e r a lly beyond the sc op e of s uffi ci encyof the evi dence re vi ew ).- 4-

K in g n e x t c h a lle n g e s th e s u f f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt h is ki dn appi ng conv i ct i on . A ra t i on al j uror coul d h ave f ou nd thatthe evi dence s a tis f ie d th e e le m e n ts o f

k id n ap p in g u n d e rN e v a d ala w b e y o n dar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. T here w as evi dence thatK i ng m ov ed H at sa dy fr om the bedroo m i nt o the show er a nd tha ts he r e ga i ne d c ons c i ous ne s s w i th at e l e phone c or d w ound t i ght l ya r ound h e rn e c ka n d w ith h a n d c u f f s a tta c h e d . Se e, e . g. , H

u tc h in s v . S ta te , 867 P . 2d 1136, 1140 ( N e v. 1994) ( uphol di ng aki dnappi ng c onvi c t i on f orar obbe rw ho s e i z e d, c o n f in e d , a n d c a rr ie d h is v ic tim f r o m th e liv in g r o o m o f

h e rap a rtm e n t to th e h a ll a r e abe c aus e “ the f

or c i bl e m e thod us e d t o r e l oc a t e he rt o as e c ur e s e tt i ng f orthe as saul t , coup l ed w i th the m ea sure s use d t o acc om pl i sh re stra i nt , cr ea t ed a great er ri sk of harm . . . . ”) . F i na l l y , K i ng c ha l l e nge s hi s c onvi c t i ons f orr obbe rya nd gr a nd the f taut o on th e g r o u n d th a t in s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e e s tab lis h e s th a t h e to o kH a ts a d y ’s p r o p e rty . H ow e ve r , a s the di s tr i c tc ourtf ound, “ [ a ] r a t i ona l j ur orpe rm i s s i bl ym a yi nf e rf r om th e f a c t th a t b o th th e a s s a ila n t a n dth e v ic tim ’s p r o p e rtya r e g o n e a f te rth e v ic tim r e ga i ne d c ons c i ous ne s s tha tthe a s s a i l a ntt ook the pr ope rtyf r om the unc ons c i ous vi ct i m , part i cul ar l y w here , as here , the as sa i l antand the vi ct i m w er e a l on e t og ether i n the a s s a i l a nt ’ s m ot e l r oom . ” W e a gr e e , a nd a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of habe a s r e l i e f

on thi s gr ound.- 5- III K i ng cl ai m s thathe re ce i ved i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l w hen h i s tri al a tt orne y s f

a i l e d t o c onduc tf

or e ns i c t e s t i ng, c a l l m e di c a l e xpe rtw i tne s s e s , a nd i nve s t i ga t e e vi de nc e poi nt i ng t o a nothe ra s s a i l a nt . T o m a ke outac l a i m f or in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e , K in g m u s t s h o w th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e : ( 1 ) f

e ll be l ow a n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of r e a s onabl e ne s s , a nd ( 2) pr e j udi c e d the out c om e of th e tr ia l. Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 46 6 U . S . 66 8 (19 84 ). W e a ff i rm the di stri ct court ’ s r ej ec t i on of al l three of K i ng ’ s c l ai m s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of tri al c o u n s e l. K in g a lle g e s th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l p e r f o rm e dd e f

ic ie n tlyb yf

a ilin g to o b ta in f or e ns i c t e s t i ng of: ( 1) ar e d- br ow n s ubs t a nc e obs e rve d on as oc k a nd ne a ral i ght sw i t ch , an d (2 ) red h ai r fo u n d i n a k n o tt ed t el ep h o n e co rd . H o w ev er, d efen se c o u n s e l r e p e a te d lye m p h a s iz e d th e S ta te ’s f a ilu r e to lin kth e e v id e n c e f o r e n s ic a lly t o H at sa dy and thu s di d n otperf orm i neff

ec t i vel y. S ec on d, K i ng do es no tsupp ort hi s c ont e nt i on tha tthe t e s tr e s ul t s w oul d l i ke l yha ve e xc l ude d H a t s a dy . E ve n i f the re sul t s di d excl ud e H at sa dy, they w ou l d h ave had m i ni m al excul pat ory val ue gi ven th a t th e e v id e n c e c a m e f r o m am o te l r o o m w ith f r e q u e n t g u e s t tu rn o v e r . K in g n e x t a s s e rts th a t d e f e n s e c o u n s e l p e r f

o rm e din e f

f e c tiv e lyin f

a ilin g to ca ll D r. M u ss eh l t o testify th at H atsa d y’s in ju ries w er e c o n sisten t w ith K in g ’s- 6-

“r o u g h s e x ” d e f

e n s e . T h e N e v a d aS u p r e m e C o u rt r e je c te dth is c la im o n p o s tc o n v ic tio n r e v ie w o n th e g r o u n d th a t it “is b e lie db yth e r e c o r d ,” a n dw e a g r e e . D r . M u s s e h l’s n o te s in c lu d e d an o ta tio n th a t H a ts a d ys u f f e r e d“a c u te . . . [a ] sphyxi at i on . ” M oreover, no prej ud i ce re sul t ed, as defe nse c ou nsel hi gh l i gh t ed i n hi s c l os i ng s t a t e m e ntthe i na de qua c yof S he rw ood’ s t e s t i m ony , the c ont e ntof th e m e d ic a l r e p o rts , a n d th e S ta te ’s f a ilu r e to c a ll a n ym e d ic a l e x p e rts . F i na l l y , K i ng a r gue s tha tde f e ns e c ouns e l pe r f

orm e d i ne f

f e c t i ve l ybyf

a i l i ng to c o n d u c t a n a d e q u a te in v e s tig a tio n in to th e p o s s ib ilityo f a n o th e ra s s a ila n t. H ow e ve r , K i ng’ s s t orytha the aba ndone d H a t s a dya f t e rf i ndi ng he runc ons c i ous f r om drug us e ha d a l r e a dybe e n di s c r e di t e d a nd hi s c l a i m of a nothe ra s s a i l a nt r e s te d o n p u r e s p e c u la tio n . T h e N e v a d aS u p r e m e C o u rt’s r e je c tio n o f

th is c la im w as thu s nei ther c on traryt o, no r an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, the Str i c kland s t a nda r d. IV K in g c o n te n d s th a t h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l p e r f o rm e din e f

f e c tiv e lyin f

a ilin g to obj e c tw he n the S t a t e “ i nt e nt i ona l l ya nd de l i be r a t e l yf a i l e d t o c ol l e c t , pr e s e rve , a nd di s c l os e ” f

ouri t e m s of

pot e nt i a l l ye xc ul pa t orye vi de nc e . T hi s c l a i m a l s o r e l i e s on pu re spec ul at i on , as K i ng do es no tprov i de any s up po rtfor the prop osi t i on that f or e ns i c t e s t i ng of

the i t e m s w oul d ha ve l i ke l ye xone r a t e d hi m ori de nt i f i e d a- 7-

di f f e r e nta s s a i l a nt . A ppe l l a t e c ouns e l i s notr e qui r e d t o r a i s e e ve rynon- f r i vol ous is s u e o n ap p e a l. Jones v . B arnes , 4 6 3 U .S . 7 4 5 (1 9 8 3 ). T h u s, th e s tate co u rt’s deci si on re

j ec t i ng thi s c l ai m w as no tcontraryt o, or an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, the Str i c kland s ta n d a r d . V K in g a r g u e s th a t c u m u la tiv e e rr o rr e n d e r e dh is tr ia l f u n d a m e n ta llyu n f

a irin vi ol a t i on of

due pr oc e s s . T he N e va daS upr e m e C ourtdi s m i s s e d thi s c l a i m on the r a t i ona l e tha ta l l of

K i ng’ s i ndi vi dua l c l a i m s of e rr orf a i l . W e a gr e e , a nd c onc l ude thatK i ng ’ s f

i nal cl ai m do es no tprov i de a bas i s f or fe dera l habeas re l i ef

. A FFI R M ED .