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 H on orabl e L ynn S . A del m an, D i stri ctJudg e f or the U ni t ed S t at es ** D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W i s c ons i n, 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 PATR I CK AN DREW PI ER CE , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v. D E R R A L G . A D A M S , W ar den R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e . N o. 10- 15214 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 6 2 2 - N RS 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 E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia N . R a ndy S m i th, C i r c ui tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry 16, 2013 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: F A R R IS and B Y B E E , C i rc ui tJudg es , and A D E L M A N , D i stri ctJudg e. ** A C a lif o rn iaju ry c o n v ic te d P a tr ic kA n d r e w P ie r c e ( “P ie r c e ” ) o f s e x u a lly abusi ng hi s s t ep-daugh t er , S usan L . (“ S usan”) . P i er ce had p re vi ou sl y bee n charged in N o rth C a r o lin aw ith a s s au ltin g S u s a n , a n d th a t tr ia l e n d e d in as p lit v e r d ic t. D uri ng the C al i forni a tri al , af t erdefe nse c ou nsel sugg es t ed thatS usan m i gh tal t er



# FI LED JAN 28 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

her t es t i m on y i n o rdert o avo i d the part i al ac qu i tt al thatoccurre d i n N orth C ar ol i na, the j udge pe rm i tt e d S us a n t o t e s t i f y , ove rP i e r c e ’ s obj e c t i on, tha ta f t e rthe pr e vi ous tr i a l the N orth C a r ol i naj ur or s t ol d he rtha tthe y be l i e ve d he rbutha d t o a c qui ton som e c ou nt s due t o con fusi on i n the t es t i m on y. T he C al i forni a C ou rtof A pp ea l r e je c te d P ie r c e ’s c h a lle n g e s to th e a d m is s io n o f th is e v id e n c e a n d a f

f irm e d h is c o n v ic tio n s . T h e C a lif

o rn iaS u p r e m e C o u rt d e n ie d r e v ie w . P ie r c e th e n s o u g h t h ab e a s r e lie f , a r g u in g th a t th e in tr o d u c tio n o f th is te s tim o n y v io la te d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c o n f r o n ta tio n a n d h is F o u rte e n th A m endm entri gh tt o d ue process of l aw . H e a l so ar gu ed thathi s tri al coun se l pr ovi de d i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e by f

a i l i ng t o obj e c tt o the i ntr oduc t i on of the t est i m o n y u n d er a C al i fo rn i a ru l e b arri n g ev i d en ce o f j u ro rs’ m en t al i m p ressi o n s, a n d th a t h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l p r o v id e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b y f

a ilin g to r a is e th is tr ia l- le v e l in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e je c te d th e s e a r g u m e n ts . W e a f f i rm. I. O u rr e v ie w o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f P ie r c e ’s h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n is d e n o v o . E . g. , Ca rrera v. Ayers , 69 9 F . 3d 11 04 , 11 06 (9th C i r. 20 12 ) ( en banc). In o r d e rto o b ta in r e lie f

, P ie r c e m u s t s h o w th a t th e s ta te ju d ic ia ry ’s a d ju d ic a tio n o f

h is c la im s r e s u lte d in ad e c is io n th a t w a s c o n tr a ry to , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le3

appl i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rt o f th e U n ite d S ta te s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; C u d j o v. Ayers , 698 F . 3d 752, 761 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) . II. P i e r c e f i r s ta r gue s tha tS us a n’ s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the N orth C a r ol i na j urors’ st at em ent s c on st i tut ed i nadm i ss abl e hears ayun der Craw f ord v. W as hi ngton , 54 1 U . S . 36 (200 4), vi ol at i ng hi s C on fr on t at i on C l ause ri gh t s. P i er ce fa i l s t o sho w thatthe st at em ent s a ti ss ue qu al i fyas “ t es t i m on i al ” hears ayt o w hi ch th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C lau s e ap p lie s . See D av is v . W as hi ngton , 547 U . S . 813, 821- 22 (200 6). T he st at em ent s w er e notm ade t o a go vernm entoffi ce r w i th an eye t ow ar d tr ia l, Je nsen v. P l i ler , 439 F . 3d 1086, 1089 ( 9th C i r . 2006) , orf orthe purpos e of e s tab lis h in g o rp r o v in g s o m e f a c t, D el g a d i l lo v. W

o o d f o rd , 5 2 7 F .3 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 7 ( 9 th C i r. 20 08 ). E ven i f the st at em ent s w er e t es t i m on i al , the tri al courtadm i tt ed them notf orthe i rtruth, i . e . , tha tthe N orth C a r ol i naj ur or s a c tua l l y be l i e ve d S us a n, but for thei r e ff

ec ton S usan, i . e. , t o rebutthe defens e s ug gest i on thatS usan al t er ed her t es t i m on y i n the C al i forni a tri al i n o rdert o avo i d the part i al ac qu i tt al thatoccurre d in N o rth C a r o lin a . See Cra w f o rd , 5 4 1 U .S . a t 6 0 n .9 ; Mos e s v . P ay ne , 555 F . 3d 7 4 2 , 7 5 5 - 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . P i e r c e ne xta r gue s tha tS us a n’ s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the N orth C a r ol i na ju r o r s ’ s ta te m e n ts a m o u n te d to im p e rm is s ib le “v o u c h in g ” f o rh e rc r e d ib ility .4

P i e r c e c i t e s no S upr e m e C ourtde c i s i on f i ndi ng adue pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on ba s e d on the i m prop eradm i ss i on of evi dence; abse ntsuch autho ri ty, un der A E D P A , fe dera l c o u rts a r e w ith o u t p o w e rto g r a n t th e w r it. H ol le y v . Y ar bor ough , 568 F . 3d 1091, 11 01 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). E ven i f c l earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw al l ow ed habeas r el i ef base d o n v ou chi ng , no thi ng of the sortoccurr ed here. N o w i tness t es t i fi ed that S usan w as t el l i ng the truth, no r di d the prosec ut or or tri al j ud ge vo uch for her c r e di bi l i ty . P i e r c e c i t e s no c a s e f i ndi ng c ons t i tut i ona l e rr ori n aw i tne s s t e s t i f y i ng th a t s o m e o n e e ls e to ld h e rth e y b e lie v e d h e r . F i nal l y, P i er ce ar gu es thatef fe ct i ve tri al coun se l w ou l d h ave ( al so) obj ec t ed to th e a d m is s io n o f

th e N o rth C a r o lin aju r o r s ’ s ta te m e n ts u n d e rC a lif o rn ia E vi dence C od e § 11 50 , and thatef fe ct i ve appel l at e c ou nsel w ou l d h ave argued that tri al coun se l w as i neff

ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o m ake thi s obj ec t i on . T he di stri ctcourt f ound the s e c l a i m s unt i m e l y , a s P i e r c e f i r s tr a i s e d the m a f

t e rthe e xpi r a t i on of

the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons i n a n a m e nde d pe t i t i on, w hi c h di d not“ r e l a t e ba c k” t o the o r ig in a l p e titio n . See M a y le v . Fe lix , 545 U . S . 644, 649- 50 ( 2005) . W e ne e d not d e c id e w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s c o rr e c t in th is ru lin g , a s w e a g r e e w ith its a lte rn a te c o n c lu s io n th a t th e c la im s f a il o n th e m e r its . S e c tio n 1 1 5 0 ap p lie s to p o s t- v e r d ic t c h a lle n g e s , P eopl e v . A l len , 264 P . 3d 336, 344 n. 10 ( C a l . 2011) , a nd the t e s t i m ony a ti s s ue he r e w a s notpr e s e nt e d a s pa rtof a n a tt a c k on the va l i di ty of the pr i orN orth C a r ol i nave r di c t . F urthe r , the t e s t i m ony w a s pr e s e nt e d f orthe5

e f f e c ton S us a n, not“ the e f f e c tof s uc h s t a t e m e nt , c onduc t , c ondi t i on, ore ve nt upon aj ur or . ” C a l . E vi d. C ode § 1150( a ) . P i e r c e c i t e s no c a s e hol di ng tha t§ 1150 i s i m pl i ca t ed w hen a previ ou s ver di cti s di sc usse d i n a subsequenttri al . B ec ause a la w y e ris n o t r e q u ir e d to m a k e af u tile o b je c tio n , s e e , e . g. , Ja m es v. B o rg , 24 F . 3d 20, 27 ( 9th C i r . 1994) , P i e r c e ’ s tr i a l c ouns e l di d notpe r f orm de f i c i e nt l y i n f

a i l i ng to r a is e § 1 1 5 0 , a n d th u s P ie r c e ’s ap p e lla te c o u n s e l d id n o t p e r f o rm d e f ic ie n tly in f a ilin g to a r g u e th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e . III. F o rth e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.