N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TERENC E PASSM ORE,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. DAN O’ FALLON a

nd ATTOR

NEY GENER AL FOR THE STATE OF M ONTANA,

R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-35685 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-00121-C SO M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na C aroly n S. Ostby , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 10, 2018 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GOULD a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd TUNHEIM , * ** C hie f Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED M AY15 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble John R . Tunhe im , C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M i nne sota , sitting by de signa tion.Te re nc e Pa ssm ore a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his pe tition for a writ of ha be a s c orpus unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254. The sta te c ourt’ s re

j e c tion of Pa ssm ore ’ s c la im s tha t his dueproc e ss a

nd e ffe c tive a s sista

n c e of c ounse l rights we re viola te d due to thepre se nc e of Dixie Jim ison on the

jury wa s not a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt. It is irre l e va

nt tha t the sta te c o urt did not e xpre ssly a ddre ss the se c la im s, give n tha

t the re wa s a

“ re a sona ble ba sis for thesta

te c ourt to de ny

re lie f.” Re is-C ampos v . Bite r , 832 F.3d 968, 974 (9th C ir. 2016) (quoting Harrington v. Ric h te r , 562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011)). The re is no e vide n c e that Jimison wa s una ble to put a side he r initia l im

p re ssion a

nd “ re nde r a

ve rdic t ba se d on thee vide nc e pre s e nte d,” an d “ the m e re e x iste nc e of a ny pre c o nc e ive d notion a s to theguilt or innoc e nc e of a

n a c c use d, without more , is [not] suffic ie nt to rebut thepre sum ption of a prospe c tive juror’ s im

pa rtia lity . ” Murphy

v . Florida , 421 U.S. 794, 800 (1975) (quoting Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 (1961)); se eSk i lling v . Unite d State s , 561 U.S. 358, 396 (2010). The re fore , the due proc e s s c l a im fa ils. M ore o ve r, be c a

use the sta

te c ourt c ould re a s ona

bly c onc lude that

the tria l c ourt would not ha

ve stric ke n Jim ison for c a u se , a nd thus tha

t Jimi son’ s pre se nc e on the jury did not pre

judic e Pa ssm ore , its re

je c t ion of Pa ssm ore ’ s c la im for ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l ba s e d

on c ounse l ’ s fa ilure to strikeJim ison wa s not a n 2unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt. Se eW ainw right v . W

itt , 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985); Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). C ontra ry to thedistric t c ourt’ s orde r, the sta t e ha be a s c ourt did not ne e d to m ake a c re dibility

finding in order to c onc l ude tha t Jimison’ s pre se nc e on the jury would not de

prive Pa ssm ore o f a

fa ir tria l. B e c a

use no e vide ntia

ry he aring is re quire d whe n

the fa c tua l a l le gations, e ve n if prove n, do not sta te a c a se for ha

be a s re lie f, the sta

te c ourt’ s re

je c tion of Pa ssm ore ’ s juror bia s c la i m s wa s not ba se d on an unre a s ona

ble de te rm ination of thefa c ts. Se eHibble r v . Be ne de tti , 693 F.3d 1140, 1148 (9th C ir. 2012). Furthe r, the sta

te c ourt c o uld re a sona

bly c onc lude tha

t c ounse l’ s fa ilure to highlight m

inor inc onsiste nc ie s in J.R .’ s othe rwise c onsiste nt story told from 1998 through thec rim ina l tria l in 2006 wa s not pre j udic ia l . The re fore its re

je c tion of Pa ssm ore ’ s c la im

for ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l wa s not a

n unre a s ona

ble a pplic ation of Stric k

land . Fina lly , we re

je c t Pa ssm ore ’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l c la im

ba se d on the c um

ulative e ffe c t of c ounse l’ s c onduc t. The fa i lure to pre se nt Pope joy ’ s c um ulat ive te stim ony

did not pre

judic e Pa ssm ore in light of Edna M ille r’ s de ta ile d a c c ount of Pa ssm o re ’ s se xua l inte re st in C .R . , whe re M i lle r state d tha t she sa w

3Pa ssm ore “

joggling” C . R . “ up a

nd down” a s she “ stra ddle d” Pa ssm ore ’ s le gs. Se e W oods v . Sinc l

air , 764 F.3d 1109, 1125 (9th C i r. 2014). AFFIRM E D.

4