Case Name: Gene Andrew AUSTAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry RISLEY and Thomas Sellars, Respondents-Appellees, and Attorney General Mike Greely, Additional Respondent and Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1984-07-31
Citations: 739 F.2d 428
Docket Number: No. 83-3933
Parties: Gene Andrew AUSTAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry RISLEY and Thomas Sellars, Respondents-Appellees, and Attorney General Mike Greely, Additional Respondent and Appellee.
Judges: Before WRIGHT, GOODWIN, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 739
Pages: 428–431

Head Matter:
Gene Andrew AUSTAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Henry RISLEY and Thomas Sellars, Respondents-Appellees, and Attorney General Mike Greely, Additional Respondent and Appellee.
No. 83-3933.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 9, 1984.
Decided July 31, 1984.
Curtis G. Thompson, Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, Great Falls, Mont., for petitioner-appellant. . ,
Margaret M. Joyce Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Mont., for respondents-appellees.
Before WRIGHT, GOODWIN, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
GOODWIN, Circuit Judge.
Gene Andrew Austad, who is serving a life sentence plus consecutive terms of years in Montana upon multiple felony convictions, petitioned for habeas corpus relief claiming that the state had convicted him in violation of the federal Constitution. He asserted that because of his mental condition at the time of trial he was denied due process and that the pretrial publicity created an environment in which the failure of the state court to change the venue amounted to a denial of a fair trial. He asserted a number of other alleged constitutional deficiencies in the state proceedings, all of which were carefully reviewed by the district court. Austad appeals only the issues of denial of a change of venue and fitness' to stand trial.
The initial question of Austad's mental fitness to stand trial was essentially one of fact. Head injuries sustained by Austad as a result of a high speed police chase left him with residual brain damage. He claimed also to be suffering from amnesia and pain and having difficulty in communicating with his counsel. A comprehensive pretrial hearing was conducted by the state court on the fitness issue. The court compiled a voluminous- record of testimony including that of an internist, a neurologist, a clinical psychologist, and a psychiatrist. Austad, his mother and one of his lawyers also testified. The state court found him fit to stand trial according to the federal standards set out in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960), and that finding was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court in State v. Austad, Mont., 641 P.2d 1373, 1379 (1982).
Giving the finding on mental fitness the deference due under Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 101 S.Ct. 764, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981), the district court found no denial of due process. We agree.
Turning to the denial of the motion for a change of venue, it is noteworthy that the rape, robbery, burglary, and homicide attributed to Austad all took place on April 21, 1978, and that because of his injuries and various pretrial delays he was not tried until nearly two years later. He contends, nevertheless, that the pervasive news coverage at the time of the crimes of which he was charged made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial in Great Falls, Montana two years later. The district court considered this constitutional challenge in light of the state court record as a whole and found that Austad had not been denied a trial by twelve impartial jurors. The district court noted that the state trial judge had granted Austad individual voir dire examination and on its own motion had excused any juror who expressed reservations about his or her ability to favor the accused with the presumption of innocence. The voir dire took up some 2,000 pages of transcript and 21 trial days. Counsel and the court questioned 93 prospective jurors and every juror chosen to sit as a trial juror or as an alternate was passed for cause.
The only act the district judge did not perform which Austad now says entitles him to a'new habeas corpus hearing was personally to review tapes of radio and television newscasts and some 92 newspaper clippings. Austad contends that our recent decision in Harris v. Pulley, 692 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir.1982), rev'd — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 871, 79 L.Ed.2d. 29 (1984), requires an automatic reversal and remand so the district judge can go 'through the motions of examining these publications in order to assure himself that the news coverage had not made it impossible to obtain an impartial jury in Great Falls during January, February and March of 1980. See also Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir.1984). '
The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Patton v. Yount, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2885, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984) makes it unnecessary to reconsider whether, as appellant contends, Harris v. Pulley creates a per se rule requiring another habeas hearing in this case. In Patton, the pretrial publicity climate,was very similar to that alleged in the present case. Indeed, except for the fact that in Patton there were two trials in four years, whereas in the present case there was one trial after a delay of nearly two years, most of facts relevant to the change of venue question are indistinguishable. The Supreme Court held that the state trial court's findings of fact on the prejudicial effect of the pretrial publicity were presumptively correct In our case, both the state trial court and the state Supreme Court addressed the question. and found that no juror biased by pretrial publicity had sat on the case. The district judge indicated he had reviewed the entire state court record, failing only to recite that he had read all the clippings. Under Patton, he had no duty to read the clippings. The appellant offered no factual evidence in the district court to overcome the presumption that the state court's findings of an absence of juror bias were correct.
Other points presented before the trial court were not renewed on appeal.
Affirmed.