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

JER R Y B R OW N, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. R AYM OND M ADDEN, W arde n,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 20-16903 D.C . No. 4:17-c v-02691-PJH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy llis J. Ha

m ilton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 3, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , R AW LINSON, a

nd B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s. Je rry B rown, a C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

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

be a s c orpus 28 U.S.C . § 2254 pe tition. Hec ha l le nge s a c onvic tion on
m ultiplec ounts of se x-re late d offe nse s, c onte nding tha t the sta t e tria l c ourt’ s 

# FIL ED

SEP 9 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).que stioning of B rown a nd his wife viola

te d B rown’ s due proc e s s right to a fa ir tria l unde r the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt. 1. The C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l a

pplie d C a lifornia ’ s c onte m pora ne ous obje c tion rule , holding tha t B rown’ s fa ilure to obje c t to thetria l c ourt’ s que stioning
wa ive d this issue for a

ppe a l, a nd re je c ting B rown’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t any obje c tion would ha ve be e n futile . Its de te rm ination wa s re a sona ble . The distric t
c ourt he ld tha

t B rown’ s c la i m

wa s, the re fore , proc e dura lly de fa ulte d unde r C a lifornia la w a nd tha t this c o nstitute d a

n a d e quat e and indepe nde nt ground for
re je c ting B rown’ s pe tition. Se e C ole man v . Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991); Murray v . Sc h r iro , 745 F.3d 984, 1015 (9th C ir. 2014). 2. The distric t c ourt a lso c orre c tly rule d that, e ve n if the c la im we re not proc e d ura lly de fa

ulte d, B rown c ould not show tha t the sta te c ourt’ s re

je c tion of his judic ia l m isc onduc t c la im “ wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d

an unre a sona

ble
a pplic ation of, c le arly

e s ta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de t e rm i ne d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); Gre e nev . Fishe r , 565 U.S. 34, 38 (2011). In de te rm ining whe the r the re wa s a de nia l of due proc e ss, the c ourts do not look only

to whe the r the tria l c ourt c om m itte d m isc o nduc t, but to whe the r the c ourt’ s a c tions “re nde re d the tria l so funda m e nta lly unfa ir a s to viola

t e fe de ra l due proc e ss unde r the Unite d State s C onstitution.” Duc k e tt v . Godine

z , 67 F.3d
2734, 740 (9th C ir. 1995). Thesta te c ourt he ld tha

t the tria l c ourt’ s que stions did not viola te tha t sta nda rd be c a use the c ourt’ s que stions we re c h ie fly for the purpose of c la rific ation, a

nd the judge did not a ssum e the jury 's role by de t e rm ining the
c re d ibility

of the witne sse s. The sta te c ourt’ s holding wa s not in viola t ion of c le arly e sta

blishe d la w. B rown re lie s princ ipa lly

on Que rc ia v . Unite d State s , 289 U.S. 466 (1933) to a rgue that the tria l judge ’ s c onduc t

am ounte d to a

viola tion of his due proc e s s rights. The re the tria l judge took ove r the jury ’ s role by a sse s sing thec re dibility

of the de fe nda n t for the jury

and te lling thejury

tha t the de fe nda

nt wa s like l y ly ing. Id. at 472. The Supre m e C ourt he ld tha t the judge ’ s c ha

ra c te riz at ion of thede fe nda nt

“ wa s of a sort m ost like ly

to re m a in firm ly

lodge d in them e m ory

of the jury

and to
e xc ite a pre judic e whic h would pre c lude a fa ir a nd dispa ssiona

te c o nside rat ion of the e vide n c e .” Id. at 472. This is not suc h a c a se . The sta

te a ppe lla t e c ourt’ s ruling c onc e rning the tria l judge ’ s c onduc t in this c a se did not viola te c l e arly
e sta blishe d la w. AFFIRM E D.

3