N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B R YAN JOSEPH M INC EY, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. R ON DAVIS, W arde n of C a lifornia State Prison a t Sa n Que ntin, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 15-56264

D.C . No. 2:93-c v-02554-PSG
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d

Nove m be r 7, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, FER

NANDEZ, a

nd R AW L INSON, C i rc uit Judge s. Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt B ry an Jose ph M inc e y

(M inc e y ) a

ppe a ls the distric t
c ourt’ s de nia l of his ha

be a s c la i m s c ha lle nging his c o nvic tion. Thedistric t c ourt issue d a c e rtific ate of a

p pe a l a bility for M inc e y ’ s c la im

c ha lle nging thee xc lusion of



# FIL E D OCT 26 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.c e rta in e vide nc e re ga rding Sa ndra B rown (B rown), his girlfrie n d a nd c o-de fe nda

nt. W e subse que ntly

orde re d the sta

te to a ddre ss unc e rtifie d

ine ffe c tive a s sista

nc e of
c ounse l c la im s. C e rtifie d C la im 1. The tria l c ourt prope rly e xc lude d e vide nc e of B rown’ s prior drug use
and c hild a

buse a s c um

ulative . “ [W ] e ll e sta

b lishe d rule s of e vide nc e pe rm it tria l judge s to e xc lude e v ide nc e if its proba tive va lue is outwe ighe d by c e rta in othe r fa c t ors suc h a s unfa ir pre

judic e , c onfusion of the

issue s, or pote ntia l to m isle a d the jury
. Se e , e .g. , Fe d. R

ule Evid. 403. . .” Holme s v . South C

arolina , 547 U.S. 319, 326-37 (2006) (pa

ra lle l c ita tions omitte d); se e also C a l . Evid. C ode § 352. The pa rtie s a gre e d tha

t B rown a buse d the c hild vic tim on the night of the
c hild’ s m urde r. As a

re sult, thetria l c ourt gra

nte d the prose c ution’ s m otions in limine to e xc lude e vide nc e of B rown’ s prior drug useand c hild a b u se . The tria l
c ourt note d tha

t, for e ve ry

witne ss M inc e y

pre s e nte d to de m o n strat e B rown’ s prior ba d a c t s, the prose c ution c ould pre s e nt a n e qua l num

b e r of witne sse s atte sting to M inc e y ’ s prior drug useand c hild a buse
. C o urts m ay

lim it the num

be r of witne s se s to a

void c um ulative e vide nc e . Se e Holme s , 547 U.S. a

t 326-27. The tria l judge ’ s de c i sion to a void “ m ini-tria ls on c olla

te ra l issue s” is c onsiste nt with due proc e ss. N

e v a da v . J ac k s on , 133 S. C t. 1990, 1993 (2013) (c ita tion omitte d). Pa ge 2 of 6Unc e rtifie d C la im s

B e c a use “ jurists of re a son c ould c onc lude the issue s pre se nte d a re a de quate to de se rve e nc oura ge m e nt to proc e e d furthe r,” we e xpa n d the c e rtific ate of
a ppe a la bility to inc l ude the ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of c ounse l c la im s disc usse d be low. Buc k v . Dav is , 137 S. C t. 759, 773 (2017) (c ita tion omitte d). 2. M inc e y ’ s c ounse l did not re nde r ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e by c a lling Dr. Olive r a s a

witne ss to foc us on onepa rtic ula r strate g y (la c k of inte nt) to the
e xc lusion of others. C ounse l re a sona bly be lie v e d tha t Dr. Olive r would te stify tha t M inc e y la c ke d inte nt to kill the

c hild vic tim , a

nd m a de a

ta c tic a l de c ision to
c ha lle nge the inte nt e le m e nt of the c ha rge s a g a inst M i nc e y

by c a lling Dr. Oliver a s
a witne ss. “ Unlike a late r re vie wing c ourt, the attorne y obse rve d the re le v ant proc e e dings, kne w of m ate ria ls outside the re c ord, a

nd inte ra c te d

with thec lie nt, with opposing c ounse l, a

nd with thejudge . . . .” Harrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011). W e m ay

not se c ond-gue ss tha

t ta c tic a l de c ision. Se eid . The distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of this c la im wa s not c o ntra

ry to, or a n unre a sona

ble
a pplic ation of, Stric k

land v
. W ashington , 466 U.S. 688 (1984). 3. De fe nse c ounse l c onse nte d to thepla y i ng of thre e unre da c te d inte rvie ws be twe e n M inc e y and she riff’ s de putie s. The ta pe s inc l ude d dispa

ra ging sta te m e nts m a de by the de putie s a c c using M inc e y of ly ing a

nd of se xua lly

a busing Pa ge 3 of 6the d e c e a se d c hild. Admission of the s e unre da c te d ta pe s wa s pa

rt of a
c om pre he nsive tria l strate gy

to c onve y

the c oe rc i ve atm o sphe re in whic h M inc e y ’ s sta te m e nts we re ta

ke n. The tria l c ourt a dm onishe d the jury tha t the que stions from the d e putie s we re not e vide nc e , a nd tha t the de putie s lie d

to M i nc e y during the inte rrogation. C ounse l ’ s ta c tic a l e le c tion to perm it the jury to he ar the untrue sta te m e nts m a de by the de putie s to im pugn the inte rrogation proc e ss ne gate s a ny pote ntia l ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of c ounse l c la i m . Se eStric k land, 466 U.S. a

t 689 (e xpla ining tha

t “ sound tria l stra

te gy ” fa lls within the

wide range of re a sona

ble
e ffe c tive a s sista

n c e ). In a ddition, the

tria l judge ’ s “ c a

utiona ry instruc tions a

re pre s um e d to ha

ve c ure d pre

j udic ia l im

pa c t.” Ve lazque

z v . C ity of Long Be ac h , 793 F.3d 1010, 1028 (9th C ir. 2015) (c ita tion a nd a lte rat ions omitte d). 4. The c orone r te stifie d tha t in his opinion, the c hild vic tim die d from
m a ssive blunt injurie s and, be fore de ath, like ly suffe re d from shoc k and m e ta bolic
a c idosis (a

n a c id buildup in the

body ). The c o rone r a lso c onduc te d a toxic ology te st, with no positive re sults for a m phe tam ine s or a

ny othe r narc otic s. Ye ars late r, Dr. Pa b lo Ste wart, a

psy c h iatrist, e va luate d the c orone r’ s te stim ony and a utopsy
re ports, a nd que stione d whe the r the m e ta bolic a c idosis wa s c a

use d by phy sic a l tra um a or am

p he tam ine inge stion. “ To the e x te nt tha t this ne w te stim ony c ontra dic ts the prose c ution’ s e xpe rt te stim ony , it’ s sim ply a diffe re nc e in opinion. . Pa ge 4 of 6. .” Gime ne

z v . Oc hoa , 821 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th C i r. 2016) (c ita tions omitte d). Furthe r, the c orone r ne ve r isola te d m e ta bolic a c idosis a s the c a

use of de at

h. R athe r, the c orone r note d m e ta b olic a c idosis a s a

c om plic at ion a

rising from
m a ssive blunt tra

um a . Unlikeprior Ninth C irc uit c a se s whe re it wa s plain tha t furthe r inve stiga

tion would ha

ve unde rm ine d

the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se , se e Dunc an v . Ornosk i , 528 F.3d 1222, 1235-36 (9th C ir. 2008), he re c ounse l c ould ha ve ha d
re a s on to be ske ptic a l of the sta te toxic ology

re port. C ounse l’ s stra

te gic de c ision to foc us his time on othe r a s pe c ts of the c a se wa s the re fore not “unre a sona ble unde r pre va iling profe ssiona l norm s.” Id . at 1235. 5. Dr. Ste wart’ s opinion, without m ore , did not wa

rrant a n e vide ntia

ry he aring. W e ne e d not gra nt a n e vide ntia ry he aring if M i nc e y ’ s fa c t

ua l a lle gations, take n a s true , are insuffic ie nt to e ntitlehim to re lie f. Se e Gonzale

z v . K now le s , 515 F.3d 1006, 1014-15 (9th C ir. 2008). Eve n if M inc e y

we re a ble to show tha

t Dr. Ste w art’ s opinion would ha ve instille d doubt into the m ind of a juror at tria l, thus
avoiding a

guilty ve rdic t, he would not be

e ntitle d to re lie f be c a

u se he c annot show that his la wy e r’ s de c i sion a g a inst pursuing tha t stra te gy wa s unre a sona

ble . The re is no “ qua ntum of . . . e vide nc e ” tha

t M i nc e y c ould re ve a l at a n e v i de ntia

ry he aring to unde rm ine his la

w y e r’ s de c ision, a s oppose d to thec o rone r’ s c onc lusion. Id . at 1014. Pa ge 5 of 6Ne ithe r wa s Dr. Ste wart’ s opinion suffic ie nt to e sta blish tha t the c orone r te stifie d fa lse ly

or tha t the prose c ution pre s e nte d fa lse te stim o ny . Se e N apuev . Illinois , 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). “Introduc ing e xpe rt te s tim ony tha t is
c ontra dic te d by o t

he r e xpe rts, whe the r at tria l or a t a late r date , doe sn't a

m ount to suborning perjury

or fa lsify ing doc um e nts; it’ s sta nda rd litiga tion. . . .” Gime ne

z , 821 F.3d a

t 1143. AFFIRM E D.

Pa ge 6 of 6