N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN JESUS ALC A

NTAR A, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. L. S. M C EW EN, W a

rde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 12-56698

D.C . No. 2:11-c v-04703-ODW JPR 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 Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 21, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD a

nd PAEZ, C i rc uit Judge s, a n d C HR ISTENSEN, C hie f Distric t Judge . ** Alc anta ra first a rgue s in this § 2254 ha

be a s a ppe a l tha t his due proc e s s rights we re viola

te d be c a use of a twe nty -two y e ar de la

y be twe e n the m

urde r and his 

# F IL ED JAN 08 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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. ** The Honora

ble Da na L. C h riste nse n, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion.arre st. The pe rtine nt Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt is Unite d State s v. Lova sc o, 431

U.S. 783 (1977). Lova sc o involve d an e i ghte e n m onth de la

y be twe e n the c rim e and the indic tm e nt. Id. a

t 784. The Supre m e C ourt he ld tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s de la y wa s not so “ funda

m e nta lly unfa ir” a s to offe nd due proc e s s. Id. a t 796. The C ourt he ld in Lova sc o tha t the Sixth Am e ndm e nt is irre le va nt for pre indic tm e nt de la

y ana ly sis. Id. a

t 788. The sta

tute of lim ita

tions is the

prim a ry prote c tion a ga inst sta le c ha rge s , Id. at 789, a

n d, of c o urse , it did not ba n this m urde r indic tm e nt. The Due Proc e ss C la use ne ve rthe le ss “ ha s a

lim i te d role to pla y .” Id. Eve n

a c tua l pre

judic e doe s not ne c e ssa

rily e sta blish a due proc e ss viola tion. Id. a

t 789–90. De fe rring indic tm e n t until the prose c utor ha s proba ble c a use and until the

prose c u t or is sa

tisfie d tha t he c an prove guilt be y ond a re a s ona ble doubt justifie s de la

y . Id. at 791–92. Tha

t justifie s the de la

y he re . And unde r Lova sc o, the prose c u tor m ay de la y furthe r for various ne c e ssa ry , subje c tive re a s ons so long a s the de la y is not “ sole ly

to ga i n ta c tic a l a dva

n ta ge ove r the a c c use d.” Id. at 795 (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion om i tte d). The re c ord he re supports no suc h infe re nc e . B e c a use this is a

§ 2254 ha

be a s a ppe a l , only

Supre m e C ourt holdings c an e sta blish a right to ha

ve the pe tition gra

nte d. B ut Ninth C irc uit pre -indic tm e ntde la

y pre c e de nt would a l so be of no he lp to pe titione r. Se e , e . g., M ay s v. C oltra ne , 549 F.2d 670 (9th C ir. 1977).

He re , Alc anta

ra ha s not shown a c tua l pre j udic e . The insta

nc e s of pre

judic e Alc anta ra points to a

re spe c ulative a t be st. For e xam ple , it is not c le ar that Da vis would ha ve te stifie d at a ll, sinc e he m ight we ll ha ve e x e rc ise d his Fifth Am e ndm e nt right to re m a i n sile nt. Nor is the re any indic at ion tha

t Da vis’ s te stim ony would ha ve e xone ra te d Alc anta

ra . Da v is’ s sta t e m e nt to thepolic e doe s not a c c ount for Alc anta

ra ’ s whe re a

bouts whe n he we nt off the m orning of the m urde r with B e nne tt, the vic tim . And Da vis’ s sta te m e n t to the polic e wa s re a d into the re c ord for the jury

to c o nside r. The othe r insta nc e s of a lle ge d pre

judic e Alc anta ra c ite s a re e ve n m ore spe c u lative . Alc anta ra c om pla ins tha t the de struc tion of theblood sa m ple from the c rim e sc e ne ke pt him from ge tting to te st the b lood to se e if it re a lly be l onge d to B e nne tt, but heoffe rs no re a son to doubt that it did. Alc anta ra argue s, ba sic a l ly , tha

t if the gove rnm e nt ha d

inve s tiga te d m ore vigorously , the y c ould ha ve c a ught him soone r. B u t the re is no Supre m e C ourt holding tha

t fa iling prom

ptly to turn ove r this or tha t roc k m ake s pre -indic t

m e nt de la y a due proc e ss viola

tion. Nor doe s the re c ord e sta blish a fa c tua l pre dic a te forany

c onte ntion tha

t a we a k inve stiga

tion de prive d Alc anta

ra of a spe e die r indic tm e nt. At thetim e of the m urde r, the gove rnm e nt inte rvie we d num e rous witne s se s a

nd ta rge te d Alc anta

ra a s the prim e suspe c t. B ut his guilt c ould not be e sta blishe d be y ond a

re a sona b l e doubt the n. The re c o rd a l so indic a te s tha t at the tim e of the initia l inve stiga tion the gove rnm e nt m a de a good fa i th de te rm ination that the re wa s insuffic ie nt e v ide nc e to c ha rge Alc a nta ra with the m

urde r. The body of B e nne tt, his vic tim , wa s ne ve r loc a te d and witne sse s we re re luc ta n t to ta lk. Only in 2004 did inve stiga

tors ge t the bre ak the y

ne e de d, whe n Al Ha

tte n told inve stiga tors tha t Alc anta ra ha d told him tha t he ha d m urde re d B e nne tt.

In a ddition, Alc anta

ra argue s tha

t his due proc e s s rights we re viola te d whe n the t ria l c ourt im

prope rly a dm itte d e vide nc e re ga rding his workplac e be havior tha t pre j udic e d him . The a dm itte d e vide nc e wa s re le va n t be c a use his outra ge ous c onduc t at work e xp la ine d why m any of Alc anta

ra ’ s c o-worke rs we re sc a

re d to c om e forward. The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s ruling tha t a dm ission of the e vide nc e wa s not a

due proc e s s viola

tion wa s not a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic a tion of Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt. Alc anta ra ’ s fina l a

rgum e nt is tha

t the tria l c ourt im

prope rly a dm itte d the pre l im ina ry he a ring te stim ony

of Al Ha tte n, who c ould not te s tify whe n the c a sewe nt to tria l be c a use of he a lth proble m s. Alc anta ra argue s tha

t use of Hatte n’ s prior te s tim ony

viola t e d his c onstitutiona

l right to c onfront a

nd c ross-e xam ine his a c c use rs. Alc anta

ra ha d an opportunity to c ross-e xam i ne Hatte n at the pre lim ina ry he aring, sa

tisfy ing his right to c onfronta tion a nd c ross-e xam inat ion.

AFFIRM E D.