N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LANNY SM ITH,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. LAW RENC E WASDEN a nd B RENT REINKE, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-35273 * D.C . No. 4:08-c v-00227-EJL
M EM O R ANDUM * *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho Edwa rd J. Lodge , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 14, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED AUG 23 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* The initia l num

be r for this c a s e wa s 12-35275. Howeve r, following a re m and by this c ourt a

nd a subse que nt a

ppe a l, the c a se wa s m i sta

ke nly give n a ne w num be r: 16-35273. The initia l c a se num be r should ha

ve re m a ine d with thec a se during this subse que nt a

ppe a l a nd we c la rify this history

he re to a void a ny pote ntia l c o nfusion.

** 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.B e fore : N.R . SM ITH, * ** M UR GUIA, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt La nny Sm ith a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha

be a s pe tition, which c ha lle n ge d his 1996 c onvic tion for thefirstde gre e m urde r of Le o a

nd M a ry Downa rd. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. §§ 1291 a nd 2253, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. Pe titione r first a

rgue s tria l c ounse l re n de re d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e with
re spe c t to Eric Gre e nwa de ’ s te s tim ony a bout shoep rint e vide nc e . Eve n a s sum ing Pe titione r c ould show c a

use and pre

judic e to e xc use this c l a im ’ s proc e dura l de fa ult, this c la im

fa ils. De fe nse e xpe rt, R ic ha rd Fox, pre se nte d a

“ diffe re nt opinion”a

bout thec ha

ra c te ristic s of the shoe tha t Gre e nwa de c om

pa re d with
c orre sponding “ a

bnorm a litie s” on the im a ge ; offe re d a n a lte rnate e xpla

nation for the s im ila rity be twe e n the bottom

of the siz e 8 1/2 FootJoy and the dust-print photogra ph; a s se rte d

tha t so m uc h de t a il wa s lost in Gre e nwa de ’ s a djuste d photogra ph tha t “ w e re a l ly

c a n’ t do a c om pa rison” ; opine d tha

t the “ be tte r” m e thod
wa s to re vie wthe high-c ontra st photogra ph ta ke n by the Stat e ; a

nd a sse rte d tha

t Fox “ [did] not be lie v e . . . [Gre e nwa de is] qua lifie d a s a fore nsic footwe ar e xam ine r at

a ll.” Fox a lso dispute d Gre e nwa de ’ s c onc lusion tha t the photogra

ph

*** Judge N.R . Sm ith wa s dra wn to re pla c e Judge Pre ge rson on thepa ne l following Judge

Pre ge rson’ s de ath. JudgeSm ith ha s re a d the brie fs, re vie we d the re c o rd, a nd liste ne d to theora l a

rgum e nt. 2showe d a

n “ i d e ntify ing c ha

ra c te ristic ” of the pa

rtic ula r shoe worn by

the m urde re r, and c onte ste d Gre e nwa de ’ s vie w tha t the suppose d a

bnorm a litie s in thesiz e 8 1/2 FootJoy c orre s ponde d to pa rtic ula r points in the photogra

ph. De fe nse c ounse l a lso vigorously c h a l le nge d Gre e nwa de on his la c k of qua lific ations a

nd e xpe rie n c e with footprint ide ntific ation, e lic i ting te s tim ony tha t Gre e nwa de ha d no ba c kground or e xpe rie nc e in footwe ar ide ntific ation. De fe nse c ounse l’ s re lia

nc e on Fox’ s te stim ony

and c ross-e xam ination of Gre e nwa de wa s not outside

the bounds of “re a sona

ble profe ssiona l judgm e nt.” Stric k land v
. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 690 (1984). Pe titione r ha s not shown tha t de fe nse c ounse l wa s de fic ie nt for fa iling to re ta in a nothe r shoe im

pre ssion e xpe rt. Se e Harrington v
. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 106–07 (2011) (highlighting the “ wide latitude
c ounse l m

ust ha v e in m a king ta c tic a l de c isions” and in form ulating “ a strate gy . . . [that] ba la nc e [s] lim ite d re sourc e s in a c c ord with e ffe c tive tria l ta c tic s a n d strate gie s” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ))
. 2. Pe titione r a lso a dva

nc e s a n ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im
c onc e rning c ounse l’ s fa ilure to a de q uate ly inve stiga te a va rie ty of fore nsic
e vide nc e . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2253. Pe titione r first a sse rts tria l c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive by

fa iling to te st the shoe s se iz e d from Pe titione r and Je ff Sm ith for blood. B ut the Stat e ’ s e xpe rt te stifie d tha t no blood wa s found on e ithe r pa ir of
3shoe s, a

n d the de c ision to forgo furthe r te sting m a

y have be e n ta c tic a l, sinc e any blood found on Petitione r’ s shoe s c ould ha ve im plic ate d him
. Se e J

e nnings v
. W oodford , 290 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th C ir. 2002) (c ounse l m ay c hoose not to inve stiga te , provide d the de c ision is “ re a s ona b le an d inform e d” ). Pe titione r argue s tria l c ounse l wa s de fic ie nt for fa iling to inquire into Fox’ s work in pre vious c rim ina l c a se s . B ut de fe nse c ounse l disc usse d the de c ision to hire Fox with se ve ra l attorne y s, re c e ive d a writte n re c om

m e ndation from a c olle a gue , re vie we d Fox’ s c urric ulum vita e , a nd spokewith him

a b out his ba c kground. Hea lso purc ha se d se ve ra l books on footprint a n d ba llistic s e vide nc e so he c ould be inform e d a nd ha ve a m e aningful intervie w with Fox. C ounse l’ s de c ision to hire

Fox wa s not c onstitutiona lly de fic ie nt. Pe titione r a sse rts tha

t c ounse l should ha

ve hire d a n othe r e xpe rt to re b ut spe c ific ba llistic s e vide nc e . B ut Fox e xam i ne d the c a sings a nd the Fie ldm a ste r rifle and a gre e d with theState ’ s e xpe rts’ c o n c lusions. Se e , e .g. , W infie ld v . Rope r , 460 F.3d 1026, 1041 (8th C ir. 2006) (“ C o unse l is not re quire d to shop for e xpe rts who will te stify

in a pa rtic ula r wa y , and . . . c ounse l’ s de c ision not to inve stiga te the i ssue furthe r wa s re a sona ble give n the two c onc urring opinions of diffe re nt [e xpe rts] .” ). And a s the distric t c ourt c onc lude d, the prose c utor’ s ina p propria te c onduc t in a s king Fox a

que stion outside

the sc ope of dire c t e xam inat ion “ shows
4ne ithe r that Fox wa s inc om p e te nt nor tha

t his a ttorne y s we re ine ffe c tive ,” be c a use

“ [n] e ithe r de fe n s e c ounse l nor his e xpe rt ne e d a ntic i pate ba d be havior from the prose c ution.” Pe titione r argue s tria l c ounse l’ s fa i lure to indep e nde ntly e xam ine and te st othe r fore nsic e vide nc e , suc h a s ha ir, fibe r, and se m e n, a s we ll a s se x c rim e s kits,
c onstitute s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e . B ut the State ’ s e xpe rts did not te stify tha t a ny of this fore nsic e vide nc e im

plic ate d Pe titione r. De fe nse c ounse l ha d lim ite d
re sourc e s at his disposa

l. H arrington , 562 U.S. a

t 107. W he the r the ha ir a

nd fibe r e vide nc e would ha

ve e xone rate d Pe titione r wa s spe c ulative at be st, a nd at worse m ight ha v e inc ulpa

te d him
. 3. Pe titione r ra ise s a

num be r of othe r c la im s a sse rting tha t his trial c ounse l
re nde re d de fic ie nt pe rform a nc e . None are m e ritorious. C onc e rning B e v e rly Huffake r’ s te stim ony , Pe titione r ha s not shown tha t c o unse l’ s de c ision to stipula te to the a dm ission of a

re c e i pt wa s c onstitutiona lly de fic ie nt. Furthe rm o re , de fe nse c ounse l sought to softe

n the blow of Huffa

k e r’ s te stim ony

by e l ic iting te stim ony sugge s ting he wa s fond of “ grandm othe r ty pe s” be c a u se the y “ a c c e pt[e d] him

and love [d] him

for the way

he is[.] ” C ounse l ’ s re lia

nc e on c ross-e xam inat ion to rebut Huffake r’ s te stim ony

wa s not unre a sona

ble
.

54. Pe titione r a lso a sse rts va rious due proc e ss c la im s. First, Pe titione r argue s the t ria l c ourt viola

te d his right to due

proc e ss unde r Daube rt v . Me rre ll Dow Pharmac e utic als, Inc
. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993), by pe rm itting Gre e nwa de to offe r an opinion tha

t the siz e 8 1/2 FootJoy

m atc he d the a djuste d im a g e “ e x tre m e l y c lose ly , ” This c la i m , howe ve r, wa s both proc e dura lly de fa ulte d a nd wa i ve d. Tria l
c ounse l prope rly

obje c t e d to Gre e nwa de ’ s qua lific ations a nd te stim ony

at tria l, but the i ssue wa s not ra ise d

on dire c t a

ppe a l, nor wa s his sta

te pe tition for postc onvic tion re lie f e v e r am e n de d to a dd a Daube rt c la im . Pe titione r did not provide the Idaho Supre m e C ourt “ the ope rative fa c ts a n d the fe de ra l le ga l the ory on whic h his c la im

is ba se d” suffic i e nt to sa

tisfy the e xha ustion re quire m e nt, K oe rne r v . Grigas , 328 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th C ir. 2003) (c ita tion a nd quota tion
m arks om itte d), nor ha s Pe titione r de m onstra te d tha t this de fa ult should be
e xc use d. Pe titione r a lso a sse rts the tria l c ourt’ s e xc lusion of e vide nc e of Je ff Sm ith’ s prior ba d a c ts viola

te d due proc e ss, but the tria l c ourt’ s rulings did not re nde r the tria l “ funda

m e nt a lly unfa ir in viola

tion of dueproc e ss.” J

ohnson v . Suble tt , 63 F.3d 926, 930 (9th C ir. 1995). Thetria l c ourt pe rm itte d de fe nse c ounse l to a sk
a bout spe c ific insta

nc e s of Je ff’ s viole nt be hav ior to im pe a c h his sta

t e m e nt tha

t he ha d a “ fa ir” re p utation, a

nd to support the

the ory tha t Je ff wa s the a c t

ua l
6pe rpe t

rat or. Se e Idaho R . Evid. 608(b). The c ourt ultimate l y e xc lude d e xtrinsic
e vide nc e of Je ff’ s viole nt c h ara c te r be c a use it c o nc lude d tha

t the proffe re d
e vide nc e did not tie Je ff to the c rim e c ha rge d or the vic t im s in the c a se , se e Idaho R . Evid. 608(b), but the

c ourt did not prohibit Pe

titione r from

pre se nting a

de fe nse in othe r way s ( e .g. , by

c ross-e xam ining Je ff a

bout theinform ation c o nta ine d within polic e re p orts). The e xc l usion of some e vide n c e of Je ff’ s ba d a c ts the re fore did not de prive Pe titione r of a fa ir tria l, nor we re Idaho’ s R ule s of Evide nc e “ arbitra

ry or disproportiona

t e to the purpose s the y

are de signe d to se rve ” suc h tha t his right to pre s e nt a de fe nse wa s a

bridge d. Unite d State

s v . Sc he ffe r , 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d ). Pe titione r a sse rts tha

t a llowing Ja

m e s Swogge r to te s tify

viola te d due proc e s s, but hec ite s no la w supporting his a

rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt viola

te d his c onstitutiona

l rights by a llowing a

witne s s who e q

uivoc ate d on the sta

nd. The
use of a ja ilhouseinform ant

doe s not a

utom atic a lly re nde r a

tria l unfa ir. S

e e Hoffa
v . Unite d State s , 385 U.S. 293, 311–12 (1966). 5. Pe titione r ra ise s se v e ra l c la im s c onc e rning the prose c ution’ s fa ilure to disc lose e xc ulpa

tory or im pe a c h ing inform ation unde r Brady v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Hefirst a sse rts the prose c ution’ s fa ilure to disc lose c ha in of
c ustody inform ation c onstitute d a Brady viola tion. B ut he doe s not offe r an 7a ffidav it from tria l c ounse l or othe r e vide nc e indic ating tha t the c ha in-of-c ustody
re c o rd wa s not disc lose d be fore tria l, a nd tria l c ounse l did not obje c t to theState ’ s a sse rtion in its c losing a

rgum e nt tha

t the re ha d “ [n] o t [be e n] one m ista ke in the
c ha in of c ustody . Not oneite m lost in the

c ha in of c ustody .” Pe titione r argue s the re we re irre gula

ritie s in De te c tive R odrigue z ’ s ha ndling of the

c rim e sc e ne , a

nd
a sse rts tha

t se ve ra l doc um e nts re ga

rding thesiz e of the shoe s se iz e d from Je ff Sm i th’ s a pa rtm e nt a nd thosese iz e d from

Pe titione r’ s a

pa rtm e nt we re not disc lose d to tria l c ounse l. B ut a

diffe re nt de te c tive c olle c te d the shoe s, re a liz e d he m a de an e rror in his report, c orre c te d it in a supple m e nta l re port, a

n d te stifie d at tria l tha

t the s hoe s se iz e d from

Je ff Sm ith we re a

siz e 9 1/2. In light of this te stim ony , a nd that of a de fe nse witne ss who te stifie d tha t Pe titione r wa s a

ware tha t Pe titione r’ s shoe print ha d be e n found a t the Downa

rds’ hom e , we c annot c onc lude the
a lle ge dly withhe ld e vide nc e wa s m ate ria l. Sinc e Pe titione r ha s not shown he would ha ve a “ c olora ble or pote ntia lly

m e ritorious Brady

c la im ” if the a lle ge dly withhe ld inform ation we re c onside re d, we de c line to re m and the c l a im to sta te c ourt. Gonzale

z v . W o ng , 667 F.3d 965, 980 (9th C i r. 2011). Fe de ra l ha

be a s c ounse l a sse rts tha

t doc um e nts a

va ila ble to the prose c ution de ta iling Je ff Sm i th’ s prior ba d a c ts we re not disc lose d to thede fe nse , but doe s not show whic h fa c t s or inc ide nts we re unknown to tria l c o unse l. Tria l c ounse l c ross8e xam ine d Je ff a bout spe c ific insta

nc e s of viole nt be havior a n d e lic ite d

an a dm ission tha

t he ha d broke n into a

nd stole n things from his fa the r’ s hom e be fore
. M uc h of the a lle ge dly

suppre sse d m ate ria l wa s c um ulative of fa c t s tria l c ounse l
a lre a dy kne w. 1 Eve n a ssum ing the prose c ution fa ile d to disc lose som e e vide nc e of Je ff’ s ba d a c t s, we c annot c o nc lude the a dditional e v ide nc e wa s m ate ria l. Unite d State s v . Se daghaty , 728 F.3d 885, 900 (9th C ir. 2013). Pe titione r’ s Brady

c la im s c onc e rning theprose c ution’ s a lle ge d fa ilure to disc lose p ossiblea lte rnate pe rpe trators a nd its a lle g e d fa i lure to disc lose Swogge r’ s re c a ntation a lso fa il. The inform ation a bout a lte rnate pe rpe trators would not, if disc lose d , ha

ve unde rm ine d c onfide nc e in the fa irne ss of the tria l or the ve rdic t. Se daghaty , 728 F.3d a

t 900. Swogge r’ s sta

te m e nt to fe de ra l ha

be a s c o unse l wa s unsworn; there is no c orroborating e vide nc e tha t Swogge r initia

te d c onta c t with the polic e ; Swogge r a c knowle dge d at tria l tha t he wa nte d “ a de a l” in e xc h an ge for te stify ing; a

nd on c ross-e xam ination, thede fe nse brought out Swogger’ s le tte r to De te c tive R odrigue z . In short, thede fe nse thoroughly im pe a c he d Swogge r’ s

1 For insta

nc e , a Ge ne ra l Offe nse R e port from April 8, 1990 de s c ribing an inc ide n t in whic h R obin Sm ith a lle ge s Je ff c am e to he r pla c e of e m ploy m e nt and thre ate ne d he r wa s inc lude d in thede fe nse ’ s Exhibit AA a t tria l, a nd a c orre sponding C om

pla int R e port wa s disc lose d in the m ost re c e nt disc ove ry . Sinc e this inc ide nt wa s known to trial c ounse l , the a lle ge d fa i lure to disc lose the C om pla int R e port de t a iling thesa m e inc ide nt fa ils Brady ’ s m ate ria lity prong. 9c re d ibility . Swogge r’ s re c antat ion would not ha ve ra ise d a “ re a sona ble proba b ility ” of a

diffe re nt re sult. K

y le s v . W h itle y , 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995). Fina lly , Pe titione r a s se rts a Brady viola tion re late d

to the prose c ution’ s fa ilure to disc lose Ja im e Hill’ s sta t e m e nt to polic e . This is the only Brady c la im that wa s prope rly

ra ise d a nd e xha uste d in sta

te proc e e d ings. Give n the inc o nsiste nc i e s in Hill’ s te stim ony , he r fa t he r’ s unc e rta inty a

bout whe n the inc i de nt took plac e , a

nd the la c k of e vide nc e tha t offic ia l s working on the Downa rd
c a se kne w a

bout theinc ide nt suc h tha t the y would ha ve ha d a duty to disc lose it to the d e fe nse , we c annot c o nc lude the issue is “ de bata ble am ong jurists of re a son.” Lambright v . Ste w art , 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th C ir. 2000) (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d). 6. Pe titione r a lso a

rgue s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his re q ue sts for te sting
and inve s tiga

tion c onstitute d

an a buse of disc re tion. Pe titione r’ s disc ove ry re que st re late d only

to his unme ritorious ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la i m

for fa iling to indepe nde ntly

te st fore nsic e vide n c e . B e c a use we hold tria l c o unse l did not
re nde r ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e in his inve stiga

tion of fore nsic e vide nc e , the distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion by

de ny i ng Pe titione r’ s re que st for funding a nd disc ove ry .

10Pe titione r argue s the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of his fe de ra l ha be a s c ounse l’ s re que s t to depose Ja

m e s Swogge r c onstitute d a n a buse of disc re tion. Theonly
c la im s re m a i ning in Pe titione r’ s Am e nde d Pe tition when the c ourt de nie d his disc ove ry re que st c onc e rne d the right to pre s e nt a de fe nse and ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of tria l a

n d a ppe lla te c ounse l , a

nd Pe titione r did not indic ate how de posing Swogger would bege rm ane to the se substa ntive c la im s. He the re fore ha s not m a de a

substa ntia l showing of the

de nia l of a

c onstitutiona

l right. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2253. 7. Fina lly , Pe titione r ha s not shown the re is a “ ‘ unique sy

m m e try ’ of othe rwise ha

rm le ss e rrors, suc h tha

t the y am plify e a c h othe r in re lation to a ke y c onte ste d issue in the c a se ,” Ybarra v
. Mc Danie l , 656 F.3d 984, 1001 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Parle v . Runne ls , 505 F.3d 922, 933 (9th C ir. 2007)), nor otherwise
e xpla ine d why

this ra re ly suc c e ssful doc trine is a

pplic a ble he re , s e e Harris e

x re l. Ramse y e r v . W o od , 64 F.3d 1432, 1438 (9th C ir. 1995). Ac c ordingly , he did not show c um

ulative e rror. AFFIRM E D.

11