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.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc 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).

T he H onor abl e R obe rtJ . T i m l i n, S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge ** * f orthe C e ntr a l D i s tr i c tof C a l i f orni a , 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 AMOS NO L A O S B ORN, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. BR I AN BE LL EQUE, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 35631 D . C. N o . 1 : 0 5 - CV - 0 1 1 9 6 - CL 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

O r e gon O w e n M . P a nne r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 11, 2010 ** P ort l a nd, O r e gon B ef ore: T H O M P S O N and M cK E O W N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and T IM L IN , D i stri ct Judg e. *** 

# FI LED JU N 28 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

D ef en d an t A m o s N o la O sb o rn , a state p riso n er , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n a lle g in g in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. O sborn w as conv i ct ed of tw o cou nt s of a gg ra vat ed m urder f ol l ow i ng a bench tri al a n d w a s s e n te n c e d to lif e w ith o u t th e p o s s ib ilityo f p a r o le . H e c o n te n d s th a t h is coun se l fa i l ed t o adv i se hi m of the consequences of w ai vi ng a j ury tri al and fai l ed t o c a l l a va i l abl e m i t i ga t i ng w i tne s s e s a thi s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § § 1 2 9 1 a n d2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on t o de nya28 U . S . C . § 2254 p e titio n a n d lo o kto th e la s t r e a s o n e d s ta te - c o u rt d e c is io n— h e r e , th e O r e g o n p o s tc o n v ic tio n tr ia l c o u rt d e c is io n . V an L y nn v . Farm on , 34 7 F . 3d 73 5, 73 8 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) , c e r t. de ni e d, 541 U . S . 1037 ( 2004) . W e m a ygr a ntaw r i tof habe a s c orpus o n lyif th e s ta te c o u rt’s d e c is io n w a s ( 1 ) “c o n tr a ryto , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p l i c a t i o n o f

, c l e a r l ye s t ab l i s h e d Fe d e r a l l a w , a s d e t e rmi n e d b yth e Su p r e me C ourtof the U ni t e d S t a t e s ” or( 2) “ ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the fa ct s i n l i gh tof the evi dence pres ent ed. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). JuryT ri alW ai ve r O s born c ont e nds the s t a t e c ourtunr e a s onabl yappl i e d the c ontr ol l i ng s t a nda r d s e touti n S tr ic kla n d v . W a s h in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , in d e n y in g h is3

in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im w ith r e g a r d to h is ju rytr ia l w a iv e r . W e di sa gree . U n d e rth e tw o - p a rt Str i c kland t e s t , c ouns e l ’ s pe r f orm a nc e m us tha ve be e n d e f ic ie n t a n d p r e

ju d ic e d th e o u tc o m e . Str i c kland , 4 6 6 U . S . at6 9 3 -9 4 . T o est ab l i sh defi ci ency , O sborn “ m ustshow thatcoun se l ’ s r epre se nt at i on fe l l bel ow an obj ec t i ve st andard of rea sonabl enes s. ” I d. at6 8 8 . T o est ab l i sh p rej u d i ce, h e “ m u st show thatthere i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty that , bu tfor c ou nsel ’ s unp rofe ss i on al errors , the re sul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” I d. a t6 9 4 . He c a n n o t e s tab lis h e ith e r . O s born’ s c ont e nt i on tha thi s tr i a l a tt orne y s f a i l e d t o e xpl a i n the consequences of w ai vi ng a j ury tri al l ac ks m er i t . O sborn si gn ed a w ri tt en j ury tri al w a i ve ra c know l e dgi ng tha the ha d c ons ul t e d w i th c ouns e l a nd l a t e ra dm i tt e d i n a po st -c on vi ct i on depo si t i on thathi s c ou nsel re vi ew ed the w ai ver w i th h i m . O sborn a ls o c o n c e d e d th a t h e r e e v a lu a te d h is ju ryw a iv e rd e c is io n w ith n e w tr ia l c o u n s e l, w h o ad v i sed h i m t o co n t i n u e w i th a b en ch tri al fo r strat eg i c reaso n s. O sborn’ s c on t ent i on thathi s tri al coun se l un re as on abl y a dv i se d a j ury tri al w a i ve rbe f

or e c om pl e t i ng the i nve s t i ga t i on i nt o hi s i ns a ni tyde f e ns e a l s o l a c ks m e r it. A lth o u g h O s b o rn ’s e x p e rt n e u r o lo g is t d id n o t e v a lu a te h im u n til a f te rh is w a iv e r , h e w a s e v a lu a te d b yh is e x p e rt n e u r o p s y c h o lo g is t tw o m o n th s b e f o r e h is4

w a iv e r . A s O s b o rn h a d a lr e a d yc o n f e s s e d to th e m u r d e r s , it w a s n o t u n r e a s o n ab le fo r h i s co u n sel t o ad v i se a j u ry tri al w ai v er i n o rd er t o p resen th i s i n san i ty d efen se t o aj udge r a the rtha n aj ury . T ha tc ouns e l a dvi s e d O s born t o w a i ve hi s r i ghtt o a ju ry tr ia l a f

te rO s b o rn w a s e v a lu a te d b yo n e , b u t n o t b o th , o f h is te s tif y in g e x p e rts doe s notf

a l l 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 unde rthe ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e. Str i c kland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 8 . B ec ause O sborn h as no tes t abl i shed a Str i c kland erro r, w e n eed n o tad d ress th e p r e ju d ic e p r o n g . Id . a t 6 9 7 . I n a n ye v e n t, O s b o rn c a n n o t s h o w p r e ju d ic e in l i gh tof the ov erw hel m i ng evi dence attri al thatcontra di ct ed hi s i nsani ty def ense , i nc l udi ng hi s a dm i s s i on tha the pl a nne d the m ur de ra nd tr i e d t o c ove ri tup aft erw ard s. A j u ry w o u l d h av e b een n o m o re l i k el y t o ad o p th i s i n san i ty d efen se than the tri al j ud ge. Se nte nc i ng A s ath r e s h o l d ma tt e r , O s b o rn i s n o te n t i t l e d t o h ab e a s r e l i e f u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) b e c au s e th e r e is n o c le a r lye s tab lis h e d S u p r e m e C o u rt p r e c e d e n t in th e n o n c ap ita l s e n te n c in g c o n te x t. D av is v . G r i gas , 44 3 F . 3d 11 55 , 11 58 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ; C oo

per- Sm i th v. P alm at ee r , 3 9 7 F .3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 4 ( 9 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed 54 6 U . S . 94 4 (20 05 ). B ut , even i f the Str i c kland st andard for death p enal ty c as es5

ap p lie d to th is n o n c ap ita l s e n te n c in g , a s O s b o rn a r g u e s , h is c la im n e v e rth e le s s f a ils b e c au s e h e c a n n o t e s tab lis h p r e ju d ic e . Str i c kland , 466 U . S . a t694. O s born c ont e nds hi s c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o pr e s e nt m i t i ga t i ng w i tne s s e s a thi s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. O s born r e l i e s on the a f f i da vi t s of f i ve f a m i l ym e m be r s w ho s t a t e d the yw e r e a va i l abl e t o t e s t i f ya thi s s e nt e nc i ng but w e r e notc a l l e d t o do s o. T he i rt e s t i m ony , how e ve r , w a s unl i ke l yt o c ha nge the r e s ul tof the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ng be c aus e the pr opos e d t e s t i m ony dupl i c a t e d the ex p ertt est i m o n y g i v en attri al an d w as o u tw ei g h ed b y th e ev i d en ce ag ai n st m itig a tio n . A s the tri al j ud ge re coun t ed atse nt enci ng , O sborn p l anned the m urders , had m a n y o p p o rtu n itie s to f o r g o h is p la n , w a s th e f

ir s t to s h o o t th e v ic tim s , a n d tr ie d to c o v e r - u p th e mu r d e r s a f t e rw a r d s . O s b o rn a l s o a d mi tt e d th a th e k i l l e d th e v i c t i ms e v e n th o u g h h e d id n o t k n o w th e m o rh a v e a n yp r o b le m w ith th e m . I n lig h t o f th is e vi de nc e , the r e i s no r e a l i s t i c pr obabi l i tytha tthe r e s ul tw oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt h a d O s b o rn ’s f

a m ilym e m b e r s te s tif

ie d a t h is s e n te n c in g p r o c e e d in g . I d. B ecau se O sborn fai l ed t o est abl i sh prej ud i ce , hi s c l ai m fa i l s e ven w hen anal yz ed un der Str i c kland .6 Mi t i ga t i ngW i tness es In re j ec t i ng O sborn’ s i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m , the st at e c ou rt c o n c lu d e d th e r e w e r e n o m itig a tin g w itn e s s e s w h o w o u ld h a v e h a d th e te n d e n c y to af fe ctthe ou t com e of hi s s ent enci ng proceedi ng . O sborn con t ends thatthi s f ac tual d et erm i n at i o n w as o b

j ect i v el y u n reaso n ab l e u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )(2 ) b ecau se it o v e r lo o k e d , o rig n o r e d , th e f iv e a f f id a v its f r o m h is f a m ilym e m b e r s . O s b o rn is in c o rr e c t. T he s t a t e c ourtdi d nots i m pl yc onc l ude tha tthe r e w e r e no m i t i ga t i ng w i tne s s e s ; i tde t e rm i ne d the r e w e r e no m i t i ga t i ng w i tne s s e s w ho c oul d ha ve a f f e c t e d the out c om e of

the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ng. T ha tde t e rm i na t i on w a s not unr e a s onabl e gi ve n the f a m i l yw i tne s s e s ’ r e dunda ntt e s t i m ony a nd the o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e a g a in s t m itig a tio n . Se e T ay lorv . M

addox , 366 F . 3d 992, 9 9 9 ( 9 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 543 U . S . 1038 ( 2004) ( “ [ A ] f e de r a l c ourtm a ynot s e c ond- gue s s as t a t e c ourt ’ s f a c t - f i ndi ng pr oc e s s unl e s s . . . i tde t e rm i ne s tha tthe s ta te c o u rt w a s n o t m e r e lyw r o n g , b u t a c tu a llyu n r e a s o n ab le .” ) ; 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . C onc lus i on O sborn’ s i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m s l ac k m er i t . T he st at e c ou rt de c i s i on w a s nota n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w nor7

w a s it b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f th e f a c ts . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . O s b o rn , th e r e f

o r e , is n o t e n title d to h ab e a s r e lie f . A F F I R M E D .