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 a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 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 T I E QU ON AU ND R AY C OX , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. R O B E R T L . A Y E R S , C a lif o rn iaS ta te P r i s on a tS a n Q ue nt i n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 07- 99010 D . C. N o . CV - 9 2 - 0 3 3 7 0 - CBM 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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C ons ue l o B . M a r s ha l l , 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 F e brua ry 5, 2009

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , G R A B E R , an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P e t i t i one rT i e quon A undr a y C ox, aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on, f i l e d unde r28 U . S . C . § 2254,



# FI LED JU L 22 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSW e i ss ued a cert i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty w i th regard t o three i ss ues 1 pr e vi ous l y unc e r t i f

i e d by the di s tr i c tc our t . T hi s m e m or a ndum di s pos i t i on concerns tho se three i ss ues onl y; w e have addres se d P et i t i on er ’ s other i ss ues i n an am ended o pi ni on , fi l ed on thi s dat e. 2 ch al l en g i n g h i s co n v i ct i o n an d d eath sen t en ce fo r th e m u rd ers o f fo u r v i ct i m s. 1 B e c a us e P e t i t i one rf

i l e d hi s or i gi na l habe a s pe t i t i on i n the di s tr i c tc our tbe f or e the e f f e c t i ve da t e of

the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996 ( " A E D P A " ) , the pr ovi s i ons of A E D P A do notappl y . A l c a l av. W oodf or d, 334 F .3 d 8 6 2 , 8 6 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f th is p e titio n f o rw r it o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s , M c N e il v . M id d le to n , 3 4 4 F .3 d 9 8 8 , 9 9 4 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , r e v ’ d o n o th e rg r o u n d s , 5 4 1 U. S . 4 3 3 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( p e rc u r i a m ) , a n d we a f f i rm. 1. P et i t i on er ’ s c ou nsel di d n otprov i de i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l dur i ng the tr i a l ’ s gui l tpha s e . S e e S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 688 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . P e titio n e ra r g u e s o th e rw is e , s ta tin g th a t h is c o u n s e l f a ile dto in v e s tig a te a nd pr e s e nte vi de nc e tha tP e t i t i one rw a s notthe s hoot e ra nd tha the di d noti nt e nd th e v ic tim s ’ d e a th s . U nd erC al i forni a l aw , a def endantca n b e c on vi ct ed of fi rs t -degree m urder unde ra n a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng the ory e ve n i f the de f e nda ntl a c ke d the s pe c i f i c i nt e nt t o k i l l . P eopl e v. W i l l i am s, 94 1 P . 2d 75 2, 78 7 (C al . 19 97 ). H er e, there w as3

ov erw hel m i ng evi dence tyi ng P et i t i on ert o the m urders . F ou r w i tness es t es t i fi ed th a t P e titio n e re ith e re n te r e d o re x ite d th e c r im e s c e n e c a rry in g th e m u r d e rw e ap o n . P e t i t i one r ’ s pa l m pr i ntw a s f ound on atrunk i n the be dr oom w he r e thr e e of the vi c t i m s w e r e ki l l e d. B a l l i s t i c s t e s t i ng e s t abl i s he d tha tthe e m pty s he l l c a s i ngs a nd s p e n t b u lle ts f

r o m th e v ic in ity o f

e a c h v ic tim c a m e f

r o m th e s a m e s e m ia u to m a tic .3 0 - c a lib e rc a rb in e th a t P e titio n e rg a v e aw itn e s s to d e s tr o y . A t am in im u m , th is e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he d tha tP e t i t i one ra i de d a nd abe tt e d hi s c o- de f e nda nti n the m ur de r s . T hus , unde rC a l i f orni al a w , P e t i t i one rw oul d ha ve be e n c onvi c t e d of fi rs t -degree m urder even i f hi s c ou nsel had att em pt ed t o sho w thatP et i t i on erw as n o t th e s h o o te ro rd id n o t h a v e th e in te n t to k ill th e v ic tim s . P et i t i on eral so faul t s hi s c ou nsel for f oregoi ng a def

ense t o the m ul t i pl em urder s peci al ci rc um st ance al l egat i on . P et i t i on er ’ s c ou nsel t es t i fi ed thatthey c hos e nott o pr e s e ntade f e ns e a tthe gui l tpha s e of tr i a l be c a us e the e vi de nc e of P e titio n e r ’s g u ilt w a s o v e rw h e lm in g a n d b e c a u s e c o u n s e l w a n te d to m a in ta in cr ed ib il ity w ith th e ju ry fo r th e p en alty p h as e. P etit io n erar g u es th at h is co u n se l’ s de c i s i on nott o a r gue a ga i ns tthe m ul t i pl e - m ur de rs pe c i a l c i r c um s t a nc e s a l l e ga t i on re sul t ed fr om a m i sund er st andi ng of the l aw , bu tthe re cord do es no tsupp ortthat a r g u m e n t.4

P e titio n e r ’s c o u n s e l m a d e as tr a te g ic d e c is io n to w a iv e c lo s in g a r g u m e n t, c o n c e d e g u ilt, a n d c o n c e n tr a te o n th e p e n a lty p h a s e . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t c o u n s e l f

o rad e f e n d a n t " m a y r e a s o n ab ly d e c id e to f o c u s o n th e tr ia l’s p e n a lty ph as e, atw hi ch t i m e c ou nsel ’ s m i ss i on i s t o p er suade the tri erthathi s c l i ent ’ s l i fe sh o u l d b e sp ared . " F l o ri d a v . N i x o n , 5 4 3 U . S . 1 7 5 , 1 9 1 (2 0 0 4 ). A cco rd i n g l y, c ouns e l ’ s r e pr e s e nt a t i on di d notf a l l be l ow a n " obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of re as on abl enes s. " S tri ckl and, 46 6 U . S . at68 8. E ven i f c ou nsel ’ s r epre se nt at i on w as obj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e, P et i t i on erca nn otdem on stra t e the re qu i re d p re j ud i ce f r o m th a t r e p r e s e n ta tio n , id ., b e c a u s e o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e e s tab lis h e d h is g u ilt. 2 . T h e tr ia l c o u r t d id n o t v io la te P e titio n e r ’s r ig h t to b e p r e s e n t w h e n it excl ud ed P et i t i on erfr om hear i ng s on w hether t o shackl e P et i t i on erand excl ud ed hi m f r om as i de - ba rc onf

e r e nc e aboutc ouns e l ’ s de c i s i on nott o pr e s e ntac l os i ng a r g u m e n t d u r in g th e g u ilt p h a s e . G e ne r a l l y , " ade f

e nda nti s gua r a nt e e d the r i ghtt o be pr e s e nta ta ny s t a ge of th e c r im in a l p r o c e e d in g th a t is c r itic a l to its o u tc o m e if h is p r e s e n c e w o u ld co n tri b u t e t o th e fai rn ess o f th e p ro ced u re" o r i f th e d efen d an t ’ s p resen ce "h as a rel at i o n , reaso n ab l y su b st an t i al , t o th e fu l n ess o f h i s o p p o rtu n i ty t o d efen d ag ai n st the charge. " K entucky v. S t i ncer , 48 2 U . S . 73 0, 74 5, 75 4 (19 87 ) ( i nt ernal quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . B ut , due pr oc e s s doe s notr e qui r e the de f e nda ntt o be5

pr e s e nt" w he n pr e s e nc e w oul d be us e l e s s , orthe be ne f i tbutas ha dow . " S ny de rv. M a s s a c hus e tt s , 291 U . S . 97, 106- 07 ( 1934) , ove rrul e d i n pa r ton othe rgr ounds by M ol l oy v. H oga n, 378 U . S . 1 ( 1964) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V e a t c h, 674 F . 2d 1217, 1225 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) . T he he a r i ngs on the us e of phy s i c a l r e s tr a i nt s w e r e not" c r i t i c a l " t o the out c om e of

the tr i a l be c a us e the y i nvol ve d ac ol l a t e r a l i s s ue of s e c ur i ty tha tdi d not ha ve as ubs t a nt i a l r e l a t i on t o the que s t i on of gui l torpe na l ty . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i t c he l l , 502 F . 3d 931, 972 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 62 F . 3d 1180, 1 1 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . I n a d d itio n , P e titio n e r ’s p r e s e n c e a t th e s e h e a r in g s w o u ld n o t h a v e h e lp e d h im . T h e tr ia l c o u r t h a d b e e n to ld th a t th e r e w a s " s o m e p o s s ib ility of e s c ape " by P e t i t i one ra nd, e ve n i f P e t i t i one rha d de ni e d the rum or e d e s c ape , the tr i a l c our tl i ke l y w oul d ha ve or de r e d hi m s ha c kl e d. T he tri al courtal so coul d excl ud e P et i t i on erfr om a s i de-bar c on fe re nce ab o u t c o u n s e l’s d e c is io n n o t to p r e s e n t ac lo s in g a r g u m e n t d u r in g th e g u ilt p h a s e . T hi s part i cul arbench con fe re nce w as no ta " cr i t i ca l " s t age i n the tri al . S ee H ov ey v . A ye rs , 4 5 8 F .3 d 8 9 2 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) ( h o ld in g th at a h ea rin g o n d ef en se co u n se l’ s com pet encyw as no ta " cr i t i ca l " s t age of tri al ). F urther, the re cord show s that P e titio n e rw a s p r e s e n t in c o u r t d u r in g d is c u s s io n s ab o u t h is r ig h t to p r e s e n t a de f e ns e , tha the w a s a w a r e of hi s c ouns e l ’ s de c i s i ons a nd a c t i ons a nd ha d the6

o p p o rtu n i ty t o o b

j ecti n co u rt , an d th ath e n ev er o b j ect ed t o h i s co u n sel ’ s d eci si o n s, a c t i ons , ora s s e r t i on on the r e c or d tha tthe r e w a s no c onf l i c tbe tw e e n c ouns e l a nd P et i t i on erabou tthei r def ense stra t egy. U nd erthese ci rc um st ance s, P et i t i on erhad n o r ig h t to b e p r e s e n t a t th e s id e - b a rc o n f e r e n c e f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

o b je c tin g to c ouns e l ’ s s tr a t e gi c de c i s i on. S e e F l or i da , 543 U . S . a t192 ( hol di ng tha tde f e nda nt ne e d note xpl i c i t l y c ons e ntt o c ouns e l ’ s s tr a t e gi c de c i s i on t o c onc e de gui l ta nd focus on p enal ty phase ). 3. P et i t i on erw as no tprej ud i ce d b y i nst ance s of j ury m i sc on du ct . P et i t i on er a r gue s tha thi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d a s ar e s ul tof the f ol l ow i ng i nst ance s of j ury m i sc on du ct : (1) s om e j urors knew thatco-defe nd antH orac e B urns w a s c onvi c t e d a nd r e c e i ve d al i f e s e nt e nc e ; ( 2) e ve n though i tw a s not adm i tt ed attri al , som e j urors knew abou tand d i sc usse d B urns’ s l ett ert o P et i t i on er , in w h ic h B u rn s a s k e d P e titio n e rto ta k e th e f a ll f o re v e ry o n e e ls e a n d o f

f e r e d to m ak e su re th atn o w i tn esses w o u l d t est i fy ag ai n sth i m ; an d (3 ) th e sp ect at o rs’ o u tb u rst s an d co m m en t s w ere p ercei v ed b y j u ro rs. O n h abea s r evi ew of a c l ai m thatj urors w er e e xp osed t o extra j ud i ci al e vi de nc e be f

or e r e nde r i ng ave r di c t , the pe t i t i one rbe a r s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng th e e x tr in s ic m a te r ia l " h a d as u b s ta n tia l a n d in ju r io u s e f

f e c t" o n th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t.7

F i el ds v. B row n, 50 3 F . 3d 75 5, 77 6 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( en banc). W e have i dent i fi ed th e fo l l o w i n g fact o rs th atare p art i cu l arl y rel ev an tt o th e i n q u i ry:

" ( 1) w he the rthe m a t e r i a l w a s a c tua l l y r e c e i ve d, a nd i f s o, how ; ( 2) the l e ngth of t i m e i tw a s a va i l abl e t o the j ury ; ( 3) the e xt e ntt o w hi c h the j uror di sc usse d and consi dere d i t ; (4) w hether the m at er i al w as i ntr oduc e d be f

or e ave r di c tw a s r e a c he d, a nd i f s o a tw ha tpoi nti n the de l i be r a t i ons ; a nd ( 5) a ny othe rm a tt e r s w hi c h m a y be a ron the i s s ue of the re as on abl e possi bi l i ty of w hether the extri nsi c m at er i al af fe ct ed th e v e r d ic t." S a s s ouni a n v. R oe , 230 F . 3d 1097, 1109 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng D i c ks on v. S ul l i van, 84 9 F . 2d 40 3, 40 6 (9th C i r. 19 88 )) . W e have al so i dent i fi ed se vera l fa ct ors di m i ni shi ng the po t ent i al prej ud i ce of extri nsi c e vi dence:

" ( 1) w he the rthe pr e

j udi c i a l s t a t e m e ntw a s a m bi guous l y phr a s e d; ( 2) w he the rthe e xtr a ne ous i nf orm a t i on w a s othe rw i s e a dm i s s i bl e or m er el y c um ul at i ve of other e vi dence adduced attri al ; (3) w hether a c u r a tiv e in s tru c tio n w a s g iv e n o rs o m e o th e rs te p ta k e n to a m e lio r a te the prej ud i ce ; (4) the tri al cont ext ; and (5) w hether the st at em entw as in s u f f ic ie n tly p r e

ju d ic ia l g iv e n th e is s u e s a n d e v id e n c e in th e c a s e ." Id. (quo t i ng Je ff

ri es v. W oo d, 11 4 F . 3d 14 84 , 14 91 -92 (9th C i r. 19 97 )) . P et i t i o n er w as n o tp rej u d i ced b y so m e j u ro rs’ k n o w l ed g e o f B u rn s’ c onvi c t i on a nd l i f

e s e nt e nc e . O nl y one j ur orde c l a r e d tha tthe r e w a s adi s c us s i on aboutB urns ’ l i f

e s e nt e nc e dur i ng the i rde l i be r a t i ons ; none of the othe rj ur or de c l a r a t i ons , w hi c h w e r e s i m i l a r l y dr a f t e d by habe a s c ouns e l , c ont a i ne d s uc h a s t a t e m e nt . F ur the r , i n l i ghtof the ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e a ga i ns tP e t i t i one ra nd8

the de s pi c abl e na tur e of the c r i m e s , a s w e l l a s the tr i a l c our t ’ s i ns truc t i ons r e qui r i ng the j ury t o r e s ti t s f i ndi ngs onl y on the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l , the di stri ctcourtprop er l y hel d thatP et i t i on erw as no tprej ud i ce d b y the al l eged j ury m is c o n d u c t. P et i t i on eral so w as no tprej ud i ce d b y the j ury’ s kno w l edge of a l ett erw ri tt en b y B u rn s t o P et i t i o n er th atw as n o tad m i tt ed attri al . P et i t i o n er fai l ed t o est ab l i sh thatthe l ett erw as di sc usse d d uri ng j ury del i bera t i on s or thatthe j urors w er e expo se d t o i nform at i on abou tthe l ett erdu ri ng P et i t i on er ’ s tri al . O nl y three j urors m e nt i one d the l e tt e ri n the i rde c l a r a t i ons , a nd none of the m kne w the a c tua l c ont e nt of the l ett er . N on e of the j urors s t at ed w i th cert ai nty thatthe l ett erw as di sc usse d du ri ng del i bera t i on s. U nd erthese ci rc um st ance s, P et i t i on erca nn otshow prej ud i ce . L a s t l y , P e t i t i one rw a s notpr e j udi c e d by i m pr ope rs pe c t a t orc onduc ti n the pres ence of the j ury. P re j ud i ce w i l l be l i m i t ed i f a"c urat i ve i nstruct i on w as gi ven or som e other s t ep t aken t o am el i orat e the prej ud i ce . " S as soun i an, 23 0 F . 3d at 1109 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o B r ow n v. O rnos ki , 503 F . 3d 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 1 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( " T h e tr ia l c o u r t p r o p e r ly in s tru c te d th e ju ry to di s r e ga r d a ny e xtr a ne ous c om m e nt s a nd t o de c i de the c a s e ba s e d onl y on the evi dence attri al ; j uri es ar e pre sum ed t o fol l ow the court ’ s i nstruct i on s. ") . H er e, th e tr ia l c o u r t in s tru c te d th e ju ry n o t to d is c u s s th e c a s e a m o n g th e m s e lv e s o rw ith9

anyone el se , and n ott o al l ow anyone t o add re ss them abou tthe ca se . T he tri al c o u r t, in th e ju ry ’s p r e s e n c e , a d m o n is h e d th e s p e c ta to r s " to w a tc h th e ir c o n v e r s a tio n s a n d b e h a v io rin th e h a llw a y s w h e n y o u s e e a n y ju r o rw h e th e rin th is c a s e ora ny othe rc a s e , appr oa c h y ou, s o tha tw e don’ tha ve apr obl e m . " W he n a s p e c ta to rm a d e a n in ap p r o p r ia te o u tb u r s t in th e c o u r tr o o m , th e c o u r t im m e d ia te ly t ol d the j ury t o " di s r e ga r d the outbur s tof the s pe c t a t ora nd . . . nott o c ons i de ri tf or an y p u rp o se w h atso ev er ." F u rth er , th e e v id en ce su p p o rtin g P etit io n er ’s co n v i ct i o n s an d d eath sen t en ce w as o v erw h el m i n g . In l i g h to f th ese c ir c u m s ta n c e s , P e titio n e rw a s n o t p r e ju d ic e d b y th e s p e c ta to r ’s c o n d u c t. A F F I R M E D .