Opinion ID: 814497
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim Three – Conspiracy to deny fair

Text: investigation and conviction Cooper’s third and final claim expands on the second claim to allege a broad conspiracy among all the defendants not only during the § 1405 proceeding but also during the murder investigation and at trial. Cooper alleges that Myers, Ramos, and a host of other public officials conspired to tamper with and falsify evidence in violation of his substantive due process to “a fair and unadulterated investigation and conviction.” To the extent the claim encompasses a challenge to Myers and Ramos’s conduct during § 1405 proceedings, the challenge is “inextricably intertwined” with the de facto appeal of the state court judgment for the same reasons set forth above. A review of the broader allegations of conspiracy shows that they, too, are “inextricably intertwined” and therefore barred. Cooper bases his § 1983 conspiracy claim on allegations that the state court considered in denying further DNA testing, namely, that the defendants manipulated the crime scene; destroyed blood-splattered coveralls belonging to a different potential suspect and withheld evidence of a bloodstained shirt; planted incriminating shoeprints, a hatchet 20 COOPER V . RAMOS sheath, a button, and cigarettes; and manipulated the testimony of the surviving victim. In the § 1405 proceeding, the Superior Court found that similar and, in some instances, identical allegations were insufficient to establish Cooper’s entitlement to further DNA testing.3 From expressly characterizing as “unsupported speculation” Cooper’s theory that law enforcement planted his blood on evidence to finding that Cooper made “no showing of bad faith” with regard to the alleged withholding of the shirt, the state court considered these issues as part and parcel of the § 1405 application. The state court accepted previous state court findings regarding the evidence of the shoeprints, the hatchet sheath, and the cigarettes. Finally, the state court dismissed Cooper’s claims that statements made by the eight-year-old surviving victim raised any probability that Cooper would have enjoyed a more favorable outcome at trial with the benefit of the requested DNA testing. In general, the state court found that Cooper had “not produced any evidence” to support his theory regarding tampering with the evidence against him. Cooper can only establish his § 1983 conspiracy by proving an agreement to engage in tampering of evidence, whereas the Superior Court already determined that Cooper’s allegations of tampering were speculative and unsupported. To credit Cooper’s third claim is just another way of declaring that “the state court wrongly decided the issues 3 In reaching these conclusions, the Superior Court drew on evidentiary determinations made in the multiple previous post-conviction state and federal proceedings that Cooper has initiated. For example, the court incorporated by reference the facts set forth in People v. Cooper, 53 Cal. 3d 771, 795–802 (Cal. 1991) (appeal of conviction and death sentence), and in Cooper v. Brown, 510 F.3d 870, 874–76, 887–1004 (9th Cir. 2007) (appeals court decision on successive federal habeas petition with appendix setting forth district court decision). COOPER V . RAMOS 21 before it.” Pennzoil Co., 481 U.S. at 25 (Marshall, J., concurring). Accordingly, Cooper’s third claim is inextricably intertwined with the merits of the state court’s decision and is effectively “a prohibited appeal of the statecourt judgment.” Id.