Opinion ID: 213796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: brady and napue related claims

Text: Finally, Cooper argues that the district court erred in dismissing his Brady and Napue claims as procedurally defaulted. Cooper does not dispute that he defaulted on these claims; rather, he argues that the state procedural rules under which the Nevada courts denied his claims were not independent of federal law. We agree. The Nevada state courts found Cooper's last state petition barred by two state procedural rules: Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 34.726(1) and 34.810(2). Both of those rules contain a cause-and-prejudice exception. §§ 34.726(1), 34.810(3). Cooper argues that the Nevada Supreme Court's cause and prejudice analysis was not independent of federal law because it was based on the merits of his federal Brady claim. [2] When a federal constitutional claim is antecedent to a state court procedural determination, it does not preclude federal review. See Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 581 (9th Cir.2003). In Bennett, we noted the longstanding rule that [f]ederal habeas review is not barred if the state decision fairly appears to rest primarily on federal law, or to be interwoven with the federal law. Id. (quotations omitted); see also La Crosse v. Kernan, 244 F.3d 702, 704 (9th Cir.2001) (For a state procedural rule to be `independent,' the state law basis for the decision must not be interwoven with federal law. (citing Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983))). Although respondents point out that both rules have been held to be independent and adequate in previous Ninth Circuit cases, respondents ignore the case-by-case inquiry required for us to conclude that a state court decision is based on independent grounds. See Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that Nev.Rev.Stat. § 34.810 was independent where the court did not consider the merits of a constitutional claim when deciding whether or not to apply the bar); Bargas v. Burns, 179 F.3d 1207, 1213-15 (9th Cir.1999) (finding procedural default based on an independent rule where the petitioner could have raised his claim on a previous appeal); Moran v. McDaniel, 80 F.3d 1261, 1268-70 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding a Nevada state rule independent where the court only discussed the merits of the claim strictly for the purpose of demonstrating that [Moran] cannot overcome his procedural defaults by a showing of cause and prejudice); see also LaCrosse, 244 F.3d at 705-06 (explaining that California Supreme Court's denial of petition based on untimeliness would not bar federal review unless its determin[ation] that [petitioner's] allegation of constitutional error did not meet the criteria for the error of constitutional magnitude exception was based solely on state constitutional law). In this case, the Nevada Supreme Court explicitly relied on its federal Brady analysis as controlling the outcome of its state procedural default analysis. It stated, The second and third Brady components parallel the good cause and prejudice necessary to overcome the procedural bars; therefore, proving that the State withheld evidence generally establishes cause, and proving that the withheld evidence was material establishes prejudice. Unlike other cases, where discussion of the merits of a claim occurs simply to determine whether the claim could have been raised earlier, here the claim is itself the justification for the default. As the Nevada Supreme Court explained, in the context of Brady claims, the merits of the claim dovetail exactly with the cause-and-prejudice analysis. Thus, its decision did not rest on an independent and adequate state ground and does not bar federal habeas review. See Ake, 470 U.S. at 74-75, 105 S.Ct. 1087 (finding Oklahoma waiver rule not independent because there was an exception for fundamental trial error, which in this case rested on the determination of whether federal constitutional error has been committed). Therefore, we reverse the district court's finding of procedural default with respect to Cooper's Brady and Napue related claims, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.