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 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT J A V I A D A K H TA R, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M I K E K N O W L E S , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 15662 D. C . No . C V- 0 3 - 0 2 6 7 4 - MC E - GG H ME MO R A N D U 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 E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia , M orr i s on C . E ngl a nd, J r . , 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 M a r c h 8, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , C L IF T O N , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Ja vi ad A kh t arappeal s the deni al of hi s habea s c orpu s pet i t i on . H i s app ea l r a i s e s s i x c l a i m s of

i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l . B e c a us e w e a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc our ttha tthe s t a t e c our tde c i s i on r e j e c t i ng the c l a i m s w a s not u n r e a s o n ab le , w e a f

f irm . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). 

# FI LED APR06 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

T o est abl i sh i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l , A kh t arm ustshow bo th that hi s c ouns e l ’ s pe r f

orm a nc e “ f

e 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 ” a nd th at“ th ere i s a reaso n ab l e p ro b ab i l i ty th at , b u tfo r co u n sel ’ s u n p ro fessi o n al erro rs, the re sul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 668, 688, 694 ( 1984) . A s t o e a c h of hi s c l a i m s , A kht a rha s f a i l e d t o m a ke the ne c e s s a ry s how i ng. F ir s t, A k h ta r ’s c o u n s e l d id n o t r e n d e rin e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b y f

a ilin g to c h a lle n g e th e ap p o in tm e n t o f o n e in s te a d o f

tw o p s y c h ia tr is ts o rp s y c h o lo g is ts be c a us e A kht a rw a s e nt i t l e d t o onl y one c our t - appoi nt e d ps y c hi a tr i s tor ps y c hol ogi s t . U nde rC a l i f orni a l a w , i f

a doubta r i s e s i n the j udge ’ s m i nd a s t o a d e f e n d a n t ’ s me n t a l c o mp e t e n c e t o s t a n d tr i a l a n d i f th e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l i n f

o rms th e c o u r t th a t th e d e f

e n s e is n o t s e e k in g a f

in d in g o f in c o m p e te n c e , th e n th e c o u r t is r e q u ir e d to ap p o in t as e c o n d p s y c h ia tr is t o rp s y c h o lo g is t to e x a m in e th e d e f e n d a n t. See C a l . P e na l C ode § 1369. H e r e , ne i the rA kht a rnorhi s c ouns e l i nf orm e d the c o u r t th a t A k h ta rw a s n o t s e e k in g a f in d in g o f in c o m p e te n c e . M o r e o v e r , e v e n if tr i a l a nd appe l l a t e c ouns e l s ’ pe r f orm a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nti n notpr oc ur i ng e x a m i n a t i o n b y a s e c o n d p s y c h i a tr i s to rp s y c h o l o g i s t , Ak h t a rh a s f a i l e d t o s h o w a re as on abl e probabi l i ty thatthe re sul tof the tri al w ou l d o therw i se have been d if f e r e n t h a d th e c o u r t ap p o in te d a s e c o n d p s y c h ia tr is t o rp s y c h o lo g is t.- 3-

A kh t arnextas se rt s hi s app el l at e c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o app ea l th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g th atth e v i ct i m co u l d b e acco m p an i ed b y a supp ortpers on du ri ng her tri al t es t i m on y; A kh t arcl ai m s the pres ence of a s up po rt pers on vi ol at ed hi s r i gh t s und erthe C on fr on t at i on C l ause . F i rs t , A kh t arhas f ai l ed to s h o w th a t h is ap p e lla te c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to ap p e a l th is e v id e n tia ry ru lin g f e ll b e lo w a n o b

je c tiv e s ta n d a r d o f

r e a s o n ab le n e s s . Str i c kland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 8 8 . A kh t arw as no tdeni ed any of the four C on fr on t at i on C l ause gu ar ant ee s: A kh t ar w a s abl e t o c onf

r ontthe w i tne s s f

a c e t o f a c e , the w i tne s s t e s t i f

i e d unde roa th, A kht a rw a s abl e t o c r os s - e xa m i ne the w i tne s s , a nd the j ury w a s abl e t o obs e rve the d e m e a n o ro f

th e w itn e s s . Se e M

a r y la n d v . Cr a ig , 4 9 7 U .S . 8 3 6 , 8 4 5 - 4 6 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . F u r th e r , A k h ta rh a s f

a ile d to g iv e a n y b a s is to s u p p o r t af in d in g th a t ap p e lla te c o u n s e l’s f

a ilu r e to ap p e a l th is is s u e w a s p r e ju d ic ia l. A k h ta rn e x t c la im s th a t c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b y f

a ilin g to appe a l the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ng tha ta l l ow e d the i ntr oduc t i on of evi dence of the i nj ury A kh t arcaused t o the vi ct i m ’ s geni t al s. B ec ause fe dera l c our t s l a c k the a uthor i ty t o r e vi e w the c orr e c tne s s of s t a t e c our te vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs in f e d e r a l c o u r t h ab e a s p r o c e e d in g s , se e B radsha w v. R i chey , 546 U . S . 74, 76 (200 5), the on l y i ss ue i s w hether A kh t arhas e st abl i shed thathi s app el l at e c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve un der Str i c kland . A kht a rha s f a i l e d t o gi ve a ny r e a s on w hy- 4-

ap p el l at e co u n sel ’ s d eci si o n n o tt o ap p eal th e tri al co u rt ’ s ev i d en t i ary ru l i n g w as a defi ci encythatfe l l bel ow the obj ec t i ve st andard of rea sonabl enes s. T he evi dence of i nj ury t o the vi c t i m ’ s ge ni t a l s w a s r e l e va ntt o the c r i m e s c ha r ge d, e s pe c i a l l y the c r im e o f to r tu r e . See C a l. P e n a l C o d e § 2 0 6 ( e v e ry “p e r s o n w h o , w ith th e in te n t to c a us e c rue l ore xtr e m e pa i n a nd s uf f e r i ng . . . i nf

l i c t s gr e a tbodi l y i nj ury . . . upon th e p erso n o f an o th er, i s g u i l ty o f t o rtu re. ”). A cco rd i n g l y, th i s cl ai m al so fai l s. A kh t arcont ends thattri al coun se l erre d b y f ai l i ng t o requestspec i fi c j ury i ns truc t i ons r e ga r di ng s e l f - de f e ns e a nd i m pe r f

e c t/unr e a s onabl e s e l f

- de f e ns e a nd further c l ai m s hi s app el l at e c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve for notappeal i ng the l ac k o f a s e l f - de f e ns e i ns truc t i on. T he s e c l a i m s f a i l be c a us e notonl y w a s the r e i ns uf f i c i e nt evi dence t o sup po rtan i nstruct i on on se l f- defe nse or i m perf ec t/un re as on abl e s el fdefe nse, bu tA kh t arhas gi ven n o rea son w hy hi s c ou nsel s’ ac t i on s w er e i ne f f e c t i ve . F i r s t , c ouns e l ’ s de c i s i ons nott o r e que s ta nd nott o appe a l the l a c k of the tw o j ury i ns truc t i ons a r e “ s tr a t e gi c c hoi c e s m a de a f t e rthor ough i nve s t i ga t i on of l aw and fact s r el evantt o p l ausi bl e opt i on s [ and] ar e vi rtual l y unchal l engeabl e. ” R a l ey v. Y

l st , 470 F . 3d 792, 799 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( c i t i ng Str i c kland , 46 6 U . S . at 6 9 0 ) . A d is a g r e e m e n t w ith c o u n s e l’s s tr a te g ic d e c is io n s d o e s n o t e q u a te to 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. B asho r v . R isley , 73 0 F . 2d 12 28 , 12 41 (9th C i r. 1984) ( hol di ng c ouns e l ’ s pe r f orm a nc e w a s s uf

f i c i e nte ve n though he di d not- 5-

re qu es ta l es se r i ncl ud ed offens e i nstruct i on ). C ou nsel m ayw el l have consi dere d tha ts uc h s e l f

- de f e ns e i ns truc t i ons w oul d s e rve onl y t o a nge rthe j ury , gi ve n the l ac k o f e vi dence of s el f- defe nse. S ec on d, a def endanti s e nt i t l ed t o a j ury i ns truc t i on onl y “ i f

the the ory i s l e ga l l y c ogni z abl e a nd the r e i s e vi de nc e upon w hi ch the j ury c ou l d rat i on al l y f i nd for the defendant . ” U ni te d State s v . Mor ton , 99 9 F . 2d 43 5, 43 7 (9th C i r. 19 93 ) ( ho l di ng thata “ m er e s ci nt i l l a” of evi dence su p p o rt i n g a d efen d an t ’ s th eo ry i s n o tsu ffi ci en tt o w arran ta req u est ed d efen se i nstruct i on ). H er e, as there w as no m ore than a sc i nt i l l a of e vi dence thatA kh t ar a c t e d i n s e l f

- de f e ns e a nd s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t o the c ontr a ry , i tw a s noti ne f f e c t i ve f orA kht a r ’ s c ouns e l s nott o r e que s ta nd nott o appe a l the l a c k of s e l f - de f e ns e a nd i m p erfect/u n reaso n ab l e sel f-d efen se j u ry i n stru ct i o n s. F in a lly , A k h ta r ’s c o u n s e l d id n o t r e n d e rin e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b y f

a ilin g to obj e c tt o j ury i ns truc t i on C A L J I C N o. 2. 03, w hi c h i ns truc t s the j ury tha tthe defe nd ant ’ s del i bera t el y f al se st at em ent s m aybe consi dere d as aci rc um st ance te n d in g to p r o v e a c o n s c io u s n e s s o f g u ilt. I n C a lif

o rn ia , th e in s tru c tio n is p r o p e rin ca se s i n w hi ch there i s t es t i m on y thatbefore tri al the defendanthad m ade s ever al s ta te m e n ts r e la tin g to th e c r im e w h ic h w e r e in c o n s is te n t w ith e a c h o th e r . T urner v . M a rs h a ll , 6 3 F .3 d 8 0 7 , 8 1 9 - 2 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) , ov e r r ul e d i n par t on othe rgr ounds by T olbe r t v . P age , 18 2 F . 3d 67 7 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( en banc). A kh t arm ade s ever al- 6-

i nc ons i s t e ntpr e tr i a l s t a t e m e nt s c onc e rni ng the i nc i de nta nd r e l a t e d t o the c r i m e f or w hi c h he w a s tr i e d. AF F I RME D.