ÿWPCè  ¤¾8ï\­N8fšºsñtÙ"¾¬êÄ øYgÒ=9R±µhµ·½Ÿ°hÈG\þv‘Žö3*ŒÜä”>É×¶¥Ôn¯‘,c6“¡ÂÍ >ÉÖPŠ‹Â Eôs…ÊRn"õ 0S% ®,Wª5£|~I¥ý£¾X®kúŸHy_¬¹¦âÙÿÚ°Ù;¦AqÕÁA™kû!ËUݾM«ûóeéIìi´ng¬1L —A}g(ÈSeù5yØd ºaÕÔ\v”Õÿåã‰`èùéÀÉVÁ7½P3~ñ.”ÍærÈÍðLX–Jíl |‘±ô§—Z‡/í¿ƒŽZ„*|J¬ f¶á—OaÙtA‹„|þºœ/“-¤ù ì,n2KÍóg¿Ñ,›¾€n·ZªàQM¨×’·J[ ‰Ñ#^ÇÄ·áFêZØ"D•`EbÊIíÂKͪ¹A–.Ô3ªo,C0d¢ˆx,ÍÙ¾/fB`efåöc†Óûq͇©•ÞJ)¹÷ÜH“ªà7|ಜ ïZ´ÔÛ)|ÚxìW8ÒÜPÍXœƒF¨á—2õ¥‰­A“J(¤åmUpkQ¥5¿d¡曦ãð­É–½X€jü,HSÝå;”ÚÙÅzÉ‘v#!tUN• %ã 0(é ^  w@ 4] q € m‚ ‚ 0l™ 0D NI ŠK ,Õ 0N .O UN} } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } BË ˜HP LaserJet 5Si,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡]²3/ä ¬U­U®U¯U°U±U²U³U´Uµ[†z// 3|xµ#ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó BrechtMcKinneyLiebmanStricklerAbrahamsonSchlup Delo€PauperispauperisAEDPA OSCONealMcAninchPaytonWoodfordCondeKylesAvilaGalazaStricklandwww.___.USCourts.gov.(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔwww.cand.uscourts.gov.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÑ8€~¹XdðdÈ8Ñà@  ìàñµñò òñµñTHE€GREAT€WRIT:€A€PRIMER€ON€THE€MEANSˆÐ ° Ðà@` ` ìàBY€WHICH€FEDERAL€HABEAS€CORPUS€ˆÌà@¢¢ìàRELIEF€MAY€BE€Ô_ÔOBTAINEDÔ_Ôñµñó óñµñˆÐ à ÐÌBy:€Dallas€SacherÌÌò òInspirationòòó óÐ P   ÐÌóóÓ  Óà ` àIn€his€1975€song€ð ðHurricane,ðð€Bob€Dylan€chronicled€the€fundamentalÐ 0 € Ðmiscarriage€of€justice€by€which€Rubin€ð ðHurricaneðð€Carter€was€falsely€convicted€ofÏa€triple€murder.€At€the€time€that€the€song€was€written,€Mr.€Carter€was€serving€a€lifeÏsentence.€€Frustrated€by€this€state€of€affairs,€Mr.€Dylan€wrote:ÌÌà8 ` àð ðTo€see€him€obviously€framed€couldnððt€help€but€make€me€feelÏashamed€to€live€in€a€land€where€justice€is€a€game.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌà ` àRegrettably,€fair€minded€Americans€continue€to€feel€shame€as€we€enter€theÏnew€century.€€Having€toiled€in€the€appellate€courts€for€over€twenty€years,€I€can€bearÏwitness€that€criminal€defendants€are€often€convicted€at€trials€where€theirÏconstitutional€rights€are€not€honored.€€While€it€is€a€rare€case€where€the€governmentÏactively€frames€a€defendant€known€to€be€innocent,€it€is€a€fact€that€some€prosecutorsÏwill€violate€their€ethical€duties€in€order€to€secure€a€conviction€in€a€close€case.€€ForÏthese€unscrupulous€prosecutors,€the€trial€process€is€indeed€a€game.ÌÌà ` àIt€is€equally€true€that€direct€appeal€or€state€habeas€corpus€is€often€a€frustratingÏprocedure€as€some€appellate€judges€refuse€to€grant€remedies€by€invoking€doctrinesÏsuch€as€waiver€or€harmless€error.€Through€expansive€application€of€these€doctrines,Ïsome€appellate€courts€have€also€become€game€parlors.ÌÌà ` àWhile€it€is€not€a€panacea,€the€federal€writ€of€habeas€corpus€is€a€mechanismÏby€which€justice€can€often€be€done.€€For€whatever€reason,€federal€judges€seem€lessÏinclined€to€view€criminal€trials€as€game€shows.€€€Although€I€have€suffered€severeÏdisappointment€in€several€federal€habeas€cases,€I€have€seldom€felt€that€my€case€wasÏnot€seriously€considered.ÌÌà ` àDue€to€the€integrity€of€the€federal€courts,€Rubin€Carter€was€eventuallyÏexonerated.€€(òòCarter€v.€Ô_ÔRaffertyÔ_Ôóó€(3rd€Cir.€1987)€826€F.2d€1299.)€During€a€talk€atÐ p&À!$ ÐSanta€Clara€University€in€the€early€1990's,€Mr.€Carter€strenuously€argued€that€theÏfederal€writ€of€habeas€corpus€is€one€of€the€bulwarks€of€our€democracy.€Given€theÏimmediate€relevance€of€the€writ€to€his€own€life,€Mr.€Carter€advised€the€audience€thatÏhe€never€leaves€his€home€without€a€copy€of€the€writ€which€secured€his€freedom.€€ToÏprove€his€point,€Mr.€Carter€pulled€the€writ€from€his€pocket€and€proudly€displayed€it.ÌÐ ,`'* Ðà ` àFor€Mr.€Carter,€justice€was€done.€€It€is€my€hope€that€this€article€will,€in€someÏsmall€measure,€aid€in€the€pursuit€of€justice€for€other€wrongfully€convicted€defendants.ÌÌò òIntroductionó óÐ €Ð ÐÌà ` àThis€article€is€not€intended€to€be€a€thorough€resume€on€the€intricacies€ofÏfederal€habeas€corpus€law.€€Rather,€the€purpose€of€the€article€is€to€provide€a€road€mapÏwhereby€an€inexperienced€state€practitioner€can€preserve€federal€constitutional€issuesÏin€state€court€and€then€take€them€on€to€federal€court€where€they€can€be€won€on€theÏmerits.Ìñ+ñÌñ+ñà ` àSection€I€is€devoted€to€the€role€of€state€appellate€counsel.€€It€is€impossible€toÏprevail€in€federal€court€unless€the€winning€federal€issue€has€been€properly€raised€andÏexhausted€in€state€court.€€As€will€be€shown,€skillful€lawyering€in€state€court€willÏòòalwaysóó€result€in€satisfying€the€procedural€requirements€for€a€grant€of€federal€relief.Ð Ð  Ðñ,ñÌñ,ñà ` àSection€II€of€the€article€discusses€the€basic€procedural€rules€attendant€toÏfederal€habeas€corpus.€€It€is€a€reality€that€the€procedural€nuances€found€in€some€casesÏare€arcane€in€the€extreme.€€Such€nuances€are€far€beyond€the€scope€of€this€article.€ÏHowever,€the€essential€framework€of€the€federal€rules€can€be€gleaned€by€reading€thisÏarticle.€Ìñ-ñÌñ-ñà ` àFinally,€it€must€be€noted€that€counsel€need€only€resort€to€a€single€resource€inÏhandling€federal€habeas€cases.€€Professors€James€Liebman€and€Randy€Hertz€haveÏprepared€and€periodically€updated€an€outstanding€book€which€is€a€godsend€for€theÏfederal€habeas€practitioner.€€(Hertz€and€Liebman,€Federal€Habeas€Corpus€PracticeÏand€Procedure€(4th€ed.€2001).)€€The€present€edition€is€available€from€MatthewÏBender.€€I€can€truly€attest€that€I€have€never€found€a€legal€book€which€is€of€greaterÏpractical€use.€€The€book€is€not€only€filled€to€the€brim€with€up„to„date€case€citationsÏbut€it€also€clearly€and€concisely€explains€the€theoretical€basis€for€the€concepts€atÏissue.€€Any€lawyer€who€intends€to€do€federal€habeas€work€must€obtain€a€copy€of€thisÏbook.ÌÌà@²²)ìàI.ˆÌà8 ` àA€FEDERAL€WRIT€OF€HABEAS€CORPUS€IS€WON€BY€LAYINGÏTHE€GROUNDWORK€IN€STATE€COURT.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà ` àWinning€a€case€on€federal€habeas€is€much€like€building€a€house:€A€foundationÏmust€be€laid€before€the€structure€can€be€erected.€The€foundation€for€a€federal€writ€ofÏhabeas€corpus€is€the€work€performed€in€state€court.€€In€the€sections€which€follow,€theÏduties€of€state€appellate€counsel€will€be€discussed.ñ/ñÐ  0*€%( Ðñ/ññ0ñÌÌñ0ñà ` àA.à8 ¸ àòòState€Appellate€Counsel€must€Be€KnowledgeableÐ ° ÐConcerning€the€Requirements€for€Obtaining€FederalÏHabeas€Reliefóó.Ðภ¸  ÐÌà ` àIn€the€past,€federal€habeas€was€of€little€interest€to€most€state€inmates€sinceÏthey€were€serving€short€sentences€which€would€lapse€shortly€before€or€after€their€stateÏappeal€was€concluded.€This€is€no€longer€true.€€In€the€wake€of€the€Three€Strikes€LawÏand€other€sentencing€ð ðreforms,ðð€many€California€prisoners€are€facing€sentences€ofÏenormous€length.€€Thus,€a€large€number€of€state€prisoners€must€turn€to€federal€habeasÏin€order€to€have€any€chance€of€obtaining€their€freedom.€€Given€this€reality,€it€isÏincumbent€upon€appellate€counsel€to€ensure€that€a€prisonerððs€state€appeal€is€properlyÏhandled€so€that€federal€habeas€remains€a€viable€remedy.Ìñ1ñÌñ1ñà ` àStripped€to€the€essentials,€appellate€counsel€must€be€versed€in€the€followingÏrequirements:€€(1)€if€at€all€possible,€an€issue€must€be€raised€under€the€federalÏconstitution€or€a€federal€statute;€(2)€if€the€federal€issue€was€defaulted€by€trial€counsel,Ïa€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€must€be€made;€(3)€the€appellateÏbriefing€must€include€express€references€to€the€federal€Constitution€and€U.S.ÏSupreme€Court€case€law;€(4)€each€and€every€federal€issue€must€be€expressly€raisedÏby€petition€for€review€or€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus€in€the€California€SupremeÏCourt;€and€(5)€counsel€must€scrupulously€comply€with€all€state€proceduralÏrequirements.€€Each€of€these€topics€will€be€separately€addressed€below.ÌÌà ` àB.à8 ¸ àòòFederalize,€Federalize,€Federalize.óóÐ@¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àPursuant€to€28€U.S.C.€section€2254(a),€a€state€prisoner€may€obtain€relief€fromÏa€federal€court€only€when€ð ðhe€is€in€custody€in€violation€of€the€Constitution€or€lawsÏor€treaties€of€the€United€States.ðð€€This€provision€is€strictly€construed.€€(òòEstelle€v.Ð P ÐMcGuireóó€(1991)€502€U.S.€62,€67„68;€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]odayÔ_Ô,€we€reemphasize€that€it€is€not€theÐ ð@ Ðprovince€of€a€federal€habeas€court€to€reexamine€state„court€determinations€on€state„¼law€questions.€€In€conducting€habeas€review,€a€federal€court€is€limited€to€decidingÏwhether€a€conviction€violated€the€Constitution,€laws,€or€treaties€of€the€United€States.Ï[Citations.]ðð)Ìñ2ñÌñ2ñà ` àThere€may€be€an€occasional€state€case€which€raises€an€issue€under€a€federalÏstatute€or€treaty.€€However,€the€typical€case€will€require€the€prisoner€to€state€a€claimÏunder€the€federal€Constitution.€€Of€course,€this€duty€must€be€directly€shouldered€byÏappellate€counsel.Ìñ3ñÌñ3ñà ` àIn€the€usual€case,€it€is€easy€to€federalize€an€issue.€€For€example,€if€the€trialÏcourt€erred€by€failing€to€instruct€on€an€element€of€the€offense,€appellate€counsel€needÏonly€show€the€omission€and€then€cite€U.S.€Supreme€Court€case€law€for€theÏproposition€that€the€error€violates€the€due€process€clause€of€the€federal€Constitution.€Ð ,`'* Ð(òòNeder€v.€United€Statesóó€(1999)€527€U.S.€1,€15.)€€Similarly,€if€the€defense€attemptedÐ ° Ðto€suppress€the€defendantððs€statement€on€voluntariness€grounds,€a€simple€citation€toÏthe€due€process€clause€and€applicable€case€law€will€suffice.€€(òòMalloy€v.€Hoganóó€(1964)Ð à Ð378€U.S.€1,€13„14.)Ìñ4ñÌñ4ñà ` àA€more€difficult€problem€arises€when€the€federal€basis€for€a€claim€is€unclear.€ÏAlthough€the€following€discussion€is€not€intended€to€be€exhaustive,€the€cardinalÏprinciple€is€that€counsel€should€make€every€effort€to€federalize€a€claim.€WhileÏcreativity€may€not€be€its€own€reward€in€this€context,€the€clientððs€chances€of€gettingÏout€of€prison€may€hang€in€the€balance.Ìñ5ñÌñ5ñà ` àEvidentiary€error€provides€the€most€fertile€area€for€transforming€generic€stateÏerror€into€a€federal€constitutional€claim.€€In€this€regard,€the€constitutional€foundationÏis€found€in€either€the€Sixth€Amendment's€compulsory€process€and€confrontationÏclauses€or€the€Fourteenth€Amendment's€due€process€clause.€€(See€òòCrane€v.€KentuckyóóÐ Ð  Ð(1986)€476€U.S.€683,€690.)€€Under€these€provisions,€a€state€court€commits€federalÏconstitutional€error€when€it€excludes€highly€relevant€and€necessary€defense€evidence.€Ï(òòIbid.óó,€see€also€òòRock€v.€Arkansasóó€(1987)€483€U.S.€44,€53„56.)€€Importantly,€a€federalÐ  ð Ðclaim€may€be€made€even€if€no€error€was€made€under€state€law.Ìñ6ñÌñ6ñà ` àòòChambers€v.€Mississippióó€(1973)€410€U.S.€284€illustrates€this€principle.€€There,Ð pÀ Ðthe€defendant€sought€to€admit€a€confession€made€by€a€third€party.€€Under€state€law,Ïthe€confession€was€inadmissible€under€the€hearsay€rule.€€Notwithstanding€this€wellÏestablished€state€rule,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€exclusion€of€the€confessionÏconstituted€a€violation€of€the€due€process€clause.ÌÌñ8ññ7ñÌñ7ññ8ñà8 ` à"The€testimony€rejected€by€the€trial€court€here€bore€persuasiveÏassurances€of€trustworthiness€and€thus€was€well€within€the€basicÏrationale€of€the€exception€for€declarations€against€interest.€€ThatÏtestimony€also€was€critical€to€Chambers'€defense.€€In€theseÏcircumstances,€where€constitutional€rights€directly€affecting€theÏascertainment€of€guilt€are€implicated,€the€hearsay€rule€may€not€beÏapplied€mechanistically€to€defeat€the€ends€of€justice."€€(òòChambers,Ð °"  Ðsupraóó,€410€U.S.€at€p.€302.)Р#ð!` x` x ÐÌà ` àòòChambersóó€establishes€a€clear€rule.€€So€long€as€the€defendant€can€demonstrateÐ €%Ð # Ðthat€he€cannot€receive€a€fair€trial€absent€the€admission€of€important€evidence,€theÏfederal€Constitution€is€implicated.€€This€is€so€regardless€of€the€exact€form€which€theÏevidence€takes.€€(òòRock€v.€Arkansas,€supraóó,€483€U.S.€44,€56„62;€exclusion€ofÐ P( #& Ðdefendant's€hypnotically€enhanced€testimony€was€Ô_ÔviolativeÔ_Ô€of€her€constitutional€rightÏto€testify;€òòCrane€v.€Kentucky,€supraóó,€476€U.S.€683,€687„692;€exclusion€of€evidenceÐ 0*€%( Ðregarding€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€defendant's€confession€violated€his€rightÏto€confront€the€witnesses€against€him.)ñ9ñÐ ,`'* Ðñ9ñ‡à ` àA€case€handled€by€SDAP€further€illustrates€the€usefulness€of€the€foregoingÏauthorities.€€In€òòPeople€v.€Franklin€óó(1994)€25€Cal.App.4th€328,€the€defendant€wasÐ  ð Ðcharged€with€molesting€a€friend's€daughter.€€In€order€to€impeach€the€daughter'sÏtestimony,€the€defendant€sought€to€introduce€her€prior€false€claim€that€her€mother€hadÏmolested€her.€€Although€it€found€that€the€trial€court€had€erred€by€excluding€theÏevidence,€the€Sixth€District€declared€the€error€to€be€harmless€under€Evidence€CodeÏsection€354.€€(òòIdóó.,€òòóóat€pp.€336„337.)€€Importantly,€the€court€failed€to€address€theÐ P   Ðdefense€contention€that€the€error€rose€to€the€level€of€a€federal€constitutional€violation.€ÏThankfully,€the€Ninth€Circuit€did€not€ignore€the€claim.€€Instead,€finding€thatÏ"[Ô_Ôe]xclusionÔ_Ô€of€the€evidence€deprived€Franklin€`of€the€basic€right€to€have€theÏprosecutor's€case€encounter€and€"survive€the€crucible€of€meaningful€testing"'Ï[citations],"€the€court€reversed€the€judgment.€€(òòFranklin€v.€Henry€óó(9th€Cir.€1997)€122Ð P  ÐF.3d€1270,€1273.)Ìñ:ñÌñ:ñà ` àAs€òòFranklinóó€shows,€a€diligent€effort€can€sometimes€yield€a€dramatic€victory.€Ð Ð  ÐIn€òòFranklinóó,€a€claim€of€evidentiary€error€was€carefully€federalized€in€state€court.€€ForÐ À Ðreasons€unknown,€the€state€court€failed€to€acknowledge€the€federal€nature€of€theÏerror.€€Nonetheless,€the€Ninth€Circuit€later€granted€relief.€€While€most€of€our€clientsÏwill€not€be€as€lucky€as€Mr.€Franklin,€appellate€counsel€should€still€use€the€case€as€anÏinspirational€model.€€(See€òòÔ_ÔDePetrisÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔKuykendallÔ_Ôóó€(9th€Cir.€2001)€239€F.3d€1057,Ð €Ð Ð1062„1065;€citing€òòFranklinóó€and€reversing€a€California€judgment€where€criticalÐ pÀ Ðdefense€evidence€was€excluded.)Ìñ;ñÌñ;ñà ` àAlthough€the€law€is€much€less€certain€in€this€area,€it€is€also€possible€to€argueÏthat€the€erroneous€admission€of€irrelevant€and€prejudicial€evidence€may€constitute€aÏfederal€due€process€violation.€€(See€òòEstelle€v.€McGuire,€supra,€óó502€U.S.€62,€68„70;Ð  p Ðcourt€considers€such€an€issue.)€€A€case€from€the€Ninth€Circuit€provides€an€exampleÏof€this€type€of€error.Ìñ<ñÌñ<ñà ` àIn€òòMcKinney€v.€Reesóó€(9th€Cir.€1993)€993€F.2d€1378,€the€defendant€wasÐ à0 Ðcharged€with€murdering€his€mother€who€had€died€after€her€throat€was€slit.€€TheÏforensic€evidence€showed€that€almost€any€kind€of€knife€could€have€inflictedñ=ñ€ñ=ññ>ñÌÌñ>ñthe€fatalÏwound.€€At€trial,€the€government€presented€evidence€that€the€defendant:€€(1)€hadÏowned€a€Gerber€knife€in€the€past€(but€not€at€the€time€of€the€crime);€(2)€was€a€knifeÏaficionado;€(3)€wore€a€knife€in€the€past;€and€(4)€scratched€"Death€is€his"€on€his€closetÏdoor€with€a€knife.€€After€finding€that€this€evidence€was€completely€irrelevant,€theÏNinth€Circuit€reversed€the€defendant's€conviction.ÌÌà8 ` à"His€was€not€the€trial€by€peers€promised€by€the€Constitution€of€theÏUnited€States,€conducted€in€accordance€with€centuries„oldÏfundamental€conceptions€of€justice.€€It€is€part€of€our€community'sÏsense€of€fair€play€that€people€are€convicted€because€of€what€they€haveÏdone,€not€who€they€are.€€Because€his€trial€was€so€infused€withÐ ,`'* Ðirrelevant€prejudicial€evidence€as€to€be€fundamentally€unfair,ÏMcKinney€is€entitled€to€the€conditional€writ€of€òòhabeas€corpusóó€that€theÐ  ð Ðdistrict€court€awarded€him."€€(òòMcKinney€v.€Rees,€supra,óó€993€F.2d€atÐ à Ðp.€1386,€fn.€omitted,€emphasis€in€original.)Ð ` x` x ÐÌà ` àAs€òòMcKinneyóó€makes€clear,€a€defendant€may€be€deprived€of€due€process€whenÐ ` ° Ðthe€government€seeks€to€shore€up€a€weak€case€with€a€dose€of€highly€prejudicialÏevidence.€€Thus,€in€an€appropriate€case,€òòMcKinneyóó€can€serve€as€persuasive€authorityÐ @  Ðin€support€of€a€claim€of€federal€error.ñ?ñÌñ?ñÌà ` àAnother€example€of€turning€state€error€into€a€federal€contention€may€be€foundÏin€the€area€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€(or€the€more€sanitized€term€"prosecutorialÏerror").€€€(òòPeople€v.€Hillóó€(1998)€17€Cal.4th€800,€823,€fn.€1.)€€In€this€regard,€twoÐ ð@  Ðpossible€theories€exist.Ìñ@ñÌñ@ñà ` àFirst,€as€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€has€indicated,€a€prosecutor's€misconductÏmay€be€so€egregious€that€it€rises€to€the€level€of€a€due€process€violation.€€(òòÔ_ÔDardenÔ_Ô€v.Ð ° ÐWainwrightóó€(1986)€477€U.S.€168,€181.)€€Thus,€in€any€case€where€the€prosecutorÐ  ð Ðengages€in€substantial€misconduct,€a€federal€claim€should€be€advanced.€€(See€òòPeopleÐ à Ðv.€Samayoaóó€(1997)€15€Cal.4th€795,€841;€"`"€[a]€prosecutor's€.€.€.€intemperate€behaviorÐ €Ð Ðviolates€the€federal€Constitution€when€it€comprises€a€pattern€of€conduct€`so€egregiousÏthat€it€infects€the€trial€with€such€unfairness€as€to€make€the€conviction€a€denial€of€dueÏprocess.'"'€[Citations.].")ÌñAñÌñAñà ` àAside€from€a€global€due€process€claim,€it€is€essential€to€note€that€some€typesÏof€prosecutorial€misconduct€may€violate€specific€constitutional€rights.€€For€example,Ïif€the€prosecutor€refers€to€facts€outside€the€record,€he€or€she€is€effectively€acting€asÏan€unsworn€witness€who€has€not€been€subjected€to€cross„examination.€€(òòPeople€v.Ð P ÐBoltonóó€(1979)€23€Cal.3d€208,€214„215,€fn.€4.)€€Under€these€circumstances,€a€SixthÐ ð@ ÐAmendment€violation€is€shown.€€(òòIbid.óó;€accord€òòPeople€v.€Johnsonóó€(1981)€121Ð à0 ÐCal.App.3d€94,€104.)ÌñBñÌñBñà ` àFinally,€it€should€not€be€overlooked€that€there€is€authority€for€the€propositionÏthat€cumulative€prejudice€flowing€from€mere€state€error€can€result€in€a€federal€dueÏprocess€claim.€€For€example,€this€can€occur€"where€the€violation€of€a€state'sÏevidentiary€rule€has€resulted€in€the€denial€of€fundamental€fairness,€thereby€violatingÏdue€process,€.€.€."€€(òòCooper€v.€Ô_ÔSowdersÔ_Ôóó€(6th€Cir.€1988)€837€F.2d€284,€286;€see€alsoÐ p&À!$ ÐòòLincoln€v.€Ô_ÔSunnÔ_Ôóó€(9th€Cir.€1987)€807€F.2d€805,€814,€fn.€6.)€€Thus,€when€the€recordÐ `'°"% Ðshows€that€substantial€error€infected€the€proceedings,€counsel€should€not€hesitate€toÏargue€that€the€defendant€was€denied€a€fair€trial€under€the€federal€due€process€clause.ÌñCñÌñCñà ` àIn€short,€garden€variety€state€error€can€often€be€the€basis€for€a€viable€federalÏcontention.€€As€a€result,€defense€counsel€should€strive€to€be€as€creative€as€isÐ ,`'* Ðreasonably€possible€in€order€to€develop€and€preserve€federal€constitutional€claims.ÌñDñÌñDñà ` àAs€a€helpful€resource,€counsel€should€obtain€a€copy€of€Brad€OððConnellððsÏarticle€ð ðMaking€A€Federal€Case€Out€of€It.ðð€€The€article€appears€in€the€materials€forÏthe€June€7,€2002€seminar€held€by€FDAP€and€SDAP.€The€article€includes€an€11€pageÏtable€setting€forth€a€number€of€viable€federal€claims.ÌÌà ` àC.à8 ¸ àòòIf€a€Federal€Issue€Was€Defaulted€in€the€Trial€Court,Ð @  ÐAppellate€Counsel€Must€Advance€a€Claim€ofÏIneffective€Assistance€of€Trial€Counsel.óóÐ p ¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àA€claim€which€is€procedurally€defaulted€under€state€law€cannot€ordinarily€beÏraised€on€federal€habeas€corpus.€€(òòColeman€v.€Thompsonóó€(1991)€501€U.S.€722,€729„Ð ð@  Ð732.)€A€common€example€of€a€procedurally€defaulted€claim€is€one€where€trialÏcounsel€made€an€evidentiary€objection€but€failed€to€state€the€federal€constitutionalÏbasis€for€the€objection.ÌñEñÌñEñà ` àòòPeople€v.€Gordonóó€(1990)€50€Cal.3d€1223€is€an€illustrative€case.€€There,Ð  ð Ðdefense€counsel€strenuously€sought€to€exclude€an€extrajudicial€statement€profferedÏby€the€prosecution.€€In€so€doing,€a€hearsay€objection€was€made.€€On€appeal,€theÏdefense€categorized€the€error€as€a€violation€of€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€The€SupremeÏCourt€held€that€the€claim€had€been€forfeited€since€ð ðdefendant€failed€to€object€on€theÏground€that€the€admission€of€Ô_ÔRauchÔ_Ôððs€statement€would€violate€his€federalÏconstitutional€right€of€confrontation.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€1254,€fn.€6;€see€also€òòPeople€v.Ð @ ÐBensonóó€(1990)€52€Cal.3d€754,€788;€although€a€relevancy€objection€was€advanced€atÐ 0€ Ðtrial,€the€Supreme€Court€found€that€several€constitutional€theories€were€procedurallyÏdefaulted€since€defendant€ð ðfailed€to€put€forth€a€sufficient€constitutional€argumentÏwhen€he€made€his€motion€in€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ô;ðð€accord,€òòPeople€v.€Burgeneróó€(2003)€29€Cal.4thÐ P Ð833,€871,€fn.€6.)ÌñFñÌñFñà ` àThe€lesson€to€be€derived€from€the€cited€cases€is€a€simple€one:€If€there€is€anyÏdoubt€that€trial€counsel€has€properly€preserved€a€federal€constitutional€objection,€itÏis€incumbent€upon€appellate€counsel€to€raise€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€Absent€such€an€argument,€the€state€Court€of€Appeal€can€easily€find€that€theÏunderlying€federal€issue€has€been€procedurally€defaulted.€€While€no€one€enjoysÏbringing€such€a€claim,€the€unfortunate€reality€is€that€this€step€is€often€necessary€toÏensure€that€the€clientððs€case€can€be€cleanly€brought€to€federal€court.€€The€failure€toÏraise€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€will€often€doom€the€defendantððsÏhope€of€success€on€federal€review.€€(See€òòÔ_ÔCheinÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔShumskyÔ_Ôóó€(9th€Cir.€March€14,€2003)Ð P( #& Ð323€F.3d€748€[03€DAR€2921,€2922];€federal€claim€was€procedurally€defaulted€sinceÏtrial€counsel€ð ðfailed€to€explicitly€interpose€a€due€process€objection.ðð)ÌÌñGñÐ  ,`'* ÐñGñà ` àD.à8 ¸ àòòThe€State€Appellate€Briefs€Must€Contain€ExpressÐ ° ÐReferences€to€Both€the€Federal€Constitution€and€U.S.ÏSupreme€Court€Case€Law.óóÐภ¸  ÐÌà ` àAs€a€matter€of€comity,€a€federal€court€will€not€entertain€a€case€arising€in€stateÏcourt€unless€the€state€court€has€first€had€ð ðthe€opportunity€to€correct€alleged€violationsÏof€prisonersðð€federal€rights,€.€.€.€.ðð€€(òòDuncan€v.€Henryóó€(1995)€513€U.S.€364,€365.)Ð P   ÐGiven€this€principle,€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€a€state€prisoner€must€citeÏto€both€the€federal€Constitution€and€Supreme€Court€precedent€in€his€state€appellateÏbriefs.€This€rule€is€strictly€enforced.ÌñHñÌñHñà ` àIn€òòDuncan€v.€Henry,€supraóó,€513€U.S.€364,€a€California€defendant€argued€onÐ P  Ðappeal€that€the€trial€court€had€abused€its€discretion€under€Evidence€Code€section€352Ïby€allowing€the€admission€of€certain€evidence.€€In€arguing€the€prejudice€flowing€fromÏthe€error,€the€defendant€relied€solely€on€the€state€test€found€in€òòPeople€v.€WatsonóóÐ Ð  Ð(1956)€46€Cal.2d€818.€€After€the€Ninth€Circuit€granted€relief€on€federal€due€processÏgrounds,€the€Supreme€Court€summarily€reversed€since€the€defendant€ð ðdid€not€Ô_ÔappriseÔ_ÔÏthe€state€court€of€his€claim€that€the€evidentiary€ruling€of€which€he€complained€wasÏnot€only€a€violation€of€state€law,€but€denied€him€the€due€process€of€law€guaranteedÏby€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€366.)Ð €Ð ÐñIñÌñIñà ` àIt€is€essential€to€note€that€the€òòDuncanóó€rule€cannot€be€satisfied€by€implication.Ð `° ÐAs€a€matter€of€strict€practice,€the€federal€Constitution€and€U.S.€Supreme€Court€caseÏlaw€must€be€òòexpresslyóó€cited.€€(òòPeterson€v.€Ô_ÔLampertÔ_Ôóó€(9th€Cir.€2003)€319€F.3d€1153,Ð @ Ð1157„1159;€federal€claim€would€not€be€entertained€even€though€the€state€petition€forÏreview€cited€state€cases€which€applied€federal€case€law.)ÌñJñÌñJñà ` àIn€preparing€a€petition€for€review,€counsel€must€be€careful€to€include€both€theÏoperative€facts€and€sufficient€legal€discussion€to€establish€the€substance€of€the€issue.ÏWhile€this€may€be€difficult€to€do€in€some€cases€given€the€8400€word€limit€on€aÏpetition€for€review€(California€Rules€of€Court,€rule€28.1(e)(1)),€the€task€òòmustóó€beÐ Ð  Ðaccomplished.€€(òòKelly€v.€Smallóó€(9th€Cir.€2003)€315€F.3d€1063,€1066;€ð ðstate€prisonerÐ À! Ðmust€describe€in€the€state€proceedings€both€the€operative€facts€and€the€federal€legalÏtheory€on€which€his€claim€is€basedÔ‡XŽÁXXXÔ..ðð).Ô#†XŽÁXXXŽÁI_#ԀР #ð! ÐñKñÌñKñà ` àFor€the€moment,€the€Ninth€Circuit€has€taken€the€position€that€the€mereÏstatement€of€a€federal€issue€in€a€petition€for€review€ð ðwithout€further€discussionðð€mayÏbe€deemed€sufficient€if€the€Court€of€Appeal€opinion€discussed€the€federal€issue€ð ðinÏa€manner€sufficient€to€put€a€reviewing€court€on€notice€of€the€specific€federal€claims.Ï[Citation.]ðð€(òòKelly€v.€Small,€supraóó,€315€F.3d€at€p.€1067.)€€However,€counsel€shouldÐ @)$' Ðnot€tempt€fate€by€relying€on€this€rule.€Rather,€counsel€should€be€sure€to€provide€aÏsufficient€discussion€of€the€legal€issue€in€the€petition€for€review.€€(See€òòÔ_ÔCheinÔ_Ô€v.Ð  +p&) ÐÔ_ÔShumskyÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€03€DAR€2921,€2924;€issue€was€not€exhausted€by€ð ðbrief€referencesððÐ ,`'* Ðin€petition€for€review.)ÌñLñÌñLñà ` àWith€respect€to€the€requirement€that€Supreme€Court€case€law€must€be€cited,Ïthe€controlling€federal€habeas€statute€provides€that€relief€may€not€be€granted€unlessÏthe€state€court€decision€ð ðwas€contrary€to,€or€involved€an€unreasonable€application€of,Ïclearly€established€Federal€law,€as€determined€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€UnitedÏStates;€.€.€.€.ðð€€(28€U.S.C.€section€2254(d)(1).)€€Under€this€statute,€a€defendant€doesÏnot€have€to€demonstrate€that€his€case€bears€the€identical€facts€as€a€Supreme€CourtÏprecedent.€€(òòÔ_ÔLockyerÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAndradeÔ_Ôóó€(2003)€___€U.S.€___,€[155€L.E.2d€144,€158].)€€Ð 0 € ÐòòóóHowever,€the€defendant€must€establish€that€a€ð ðgoverning€legal€principleðð€found€in€aÐ  p  ÐSupreme€Court€precedent€is€applicable€to€his€case.€€(òòWilliams€v.€Tayloróó€(2000)€529Ð `  ÐU.S.€362,€413;€òòÔ_ÔAlvaradoÔ_Ô€v.€Hillóó€(9th€Cir.€2001)€252€F.3d€1066,€1068;€the€ð ðððSupremeÐ P  ÐCourt€need€not€have€addressed€a€factually€identical€case€[;]€ðð€2254(d)€only€requiresÏthat€the€Supreme€Court€clearly€determine€the€law.ðð€[Citation.]ðð)ÌñMñÌñMñà ` àIn€light€of€the€requirements€of€section€2254(d)(1),€state€appellate€counsel€isÏduty€bound€to€cite€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€authority€which€is€most€closely€on€point.€ÏWhile€a€federal€court€may€later€hold€that€section€2254(d)(1)€has€not€been€satisfied,Ïcounsel€should€do€everything€possible€to€give€the€defendant€a€fighting€chance€inÏfederal€court.ÌÌà ` àE.à8 ¸ àòòThe€Defendantððs€Federal€Claim€Must€Be€ExpresslyÐ `° ÐExhausted€in€the€California€Supreme€Court€by€Way€ofÏEither€a€Petition€for€Review€or€a€Petition€for€Writ€ofÏHabeas€Corpus.óóÐ0€¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àThe€U.S.€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€a€state€prisoner€may€not€advance€aÏclaim€of€federal€constitutional€error€on€a€federal€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpusÏunless€that€issue€has€first€been€presented€to€the€state€Supreme€Court€on€a€petition€forÏdiscretionary€review.€€(òòOððSullivan€v.€Ô_ÔBoerckelÔ_Ôóó€(1999)€526€U.S.€838,€839„840.)€€InÐ à0 ÐCalifornia,€an€issue€can€be€brought€to€the€state€Supreme€Courtððs€attention€by€way€ofÏeither€a€petition€for€review€or€a€habeas€petition.ÌñNñÌñNñà ` àIn€the€usual€case,€the€defendantððs€claim€of€federal€constitutional€error€willÏarise€on€direct€appeal.€After€the€Court€of€Appeal€affirms€the€judgment,€theÏdefendantððs€claim€can€be€brought€to€the€California€Supreme€Court€on€a€petition€forÏreview.€€In€framing€the€claim,€counsel€must,€of€course,€cite€both€the€federalÏConstitution€and€U.S.€Supreme€Court€case€law.€€(See€pp.€14„17,€òòsupraóó.)Ð `'°"% ÐñOñÌñOñà ` àIn€some€cases,€the€defendantððs€federal€issue€will€have€been€raised€only€in€aÏhabeas€petition€filed€in€the€Court€of€Appeal.€€In€this€situation,€the€issue€can€beÏexhausted€by€filing€either€a€petition€for€review€or€a€renewed€habeas€petition.€ÏHowever,€it€is€the€Supreme€Courtððs€preference€that€a€petition€for€review€be€filed.€€(òòInÐ ,`'* Ðre€Reedóó€(1983)€33€Cal.3d€914,€918,€fn.€2.)€€Of€course,€the€federal€issue€must€beÐ ° Ðsupported€by€express€reference€to€the€federal€Constitution€and€U.S.€Supreme€CourtÏprecedent.€€(See€pp.€14„17,€òòsupraóó.)Ð à ÐñPñÌÌñPñÌà ` àF.à8 ¸ àòòAppellate€Counsel€Must€Avoid€All€PossibleÐ pÀ ÐProcedural€Defaults€with€Regard€to€the€AppellateÏProcess.óóÐP  ¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àA€federal€court€has€the€discretion€to€deny€any€federal€contention€which€hasÏbeen€procedurally€defaulted€under€state€law.€€(òòColeman€v.€Thompson,€supra,óó€501€U.S.Ð  p  Ð722,€729„732.)€This€principle€encompasses€procedural€default€committed€byÏappellate€counsel.€Although€the€category€of€procedural€default€is€limited€only€by€theÏimagination€of€the€Attorney€General€and€appellate€judges,€there€are€a€few€obviousÏmistakes€which€defense€counsel€can€easily€avoid.ÌñQñÌñQñà ` àUnder€California€Rules€of€Court,€rule€14(a)(1)(B),€an€issue€raised€inÏappellantððs€opening€brief€must€be€supported€by€ð ðargument€and,€if€possible,€byÏcitation€of€authority;€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€failure€to€comply€with€this€rule€constitutes€aÏprocedural€default.€€(òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔRodriguesÔ_Ôóó€(1994)€8€Cal.4th€1060,€1116,€fn.€20.)€Thus,Ð à Ðit€is€not€sufficient€to€merely€state€a€claim€and€assert€that€the€federal€Constitution€hasÏbeen€violated.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð pÀ ÐñRñÌñRñà ` àRule€14(a)(1)(B)€also€requires€that€each€issue€must€appear€ð ðunder€a€separateÏheading€or€subheading€summarizing€the€point,€.€.€.€.ðð€€The€failure€to€comply€with€thisÏrequirement€will€also€result€in€waiver€of€the€issue.€€(òòPeople€v.€Doughertyóó€(1982)€138Ð 0€ ÐCal.App.3d€278,€281„283.)ÌñSñÌñSñà ` àAnother€common€procedural€default€is€the€entirely€inappropriate€tactic€ofÏraising€an€issue€for€the€first€time€in€the€reply€brief.€The€cases€are€legion€which€holdÏthat€the€Court€of€Appeal€may€deem€the€issue€to€be€procedurally€defaulted.€€(òòPeopleÐ à0 Ðv.€Dunnóó€(1995)€40€Cal.App.4th€1039,€1055;€see€cases€cited€in€€9€Witkin,€CaliforniaÐ Ð  ÐProcedure€(4th€ed.€1997)€Appeal,€section€616,€pp.€647„648.)ÌñTñÌñTñà ` àIt€is€critical€to€note€that€there€is€an€entirely€proper€method€for€raising€aÏbelatedly€discovered€issue.€€Under€California€Rules€of€Court,€rule€13(a)(4),€theÏPresiding€Justice€of€the€Court€of€Appeal€has€the€authority€to€allow€the€filing€of€aÏsupplemental€opening€brief.€€As€a€matter€of€practice,€the€Sixth€District€has€routinelyÏallowed€the€filing€of€supplemental€briefs€when€new€issues€have€been€found€byÏcounsel.ÌñUñÌñUñà ` àAs€goes€without€saying,€a€supplemental€opening€brief€is€often€needed€to€raiseÏa€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel.€€It€is€not€uncommon€for€the€AttorneyÏGeneral€to€raise€an€unexpected€claim€of€waiver€in€the€respondentððs€brief.€€In€thisÐ ,`'* Ðsituation,€the€obvious€answer€to€the€claim€is€that€trial€counsel€erred€if€a€sufficientÏobjection€was€not€made€at€trial.€€However,€this€claim€cannot€be€made€in€the€replyÏbrief.€€It€must€be€advanced€in€either€a€supplemental€opening€brief€or€a€habeasÏpetition.€€(See€discussion€at€p.€21,€òòinfraóó.)Ð €Ð ÐñVñÌñVñà ` àIf€appellate€counsel€does€not€spot€an€issue€until€after€the€Court€of€Appeal€hasÏfiled€its€opinion,€the€issue€cannot€properly€be€raised€for€the€first€time€in€a€petition€forÏrehearing€or€review.€€(òòÔ_ÔCastilleÔ_Ô€v.€Peoplesóó€(1989)€489€U.S.€346,€351„352;€issues€raisedÐ @  Ðfor€the€first€time€in€a€discretionary€petition€to€the€stateððs€highest€court€wasÏinsufficient€to€exhaust€the€claims€for€purposes€of€obtaining€federal€habeas€relief.)€€IfÏappellate€counsel€belatedly€discovers€an€issue,€the€proper€remedy€is€to€raise€the€pointÏon€state€habeas€corpus€via€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel.€€(SeeÏpp.€21„23,€òòinfraóó.)Ð ð@  ÐñWñÌñWñà ` àFinally,€the€worst€possible€procedural€default€is€the€failure€to€timely€file€aÏpetition€for€review.€€In€this€situation,€counsel€must€seek€to€correct€the€problem€byÏfiling€a€motion€for€relief€from€default€in€the€California€Supreme€Court.€€(CaliforniaÏRules€of€Court,€rule€45(e).)€€Failing€that€remedy,€the€client€must€be€advised€regardingÏthe€necessity€of€curing€the€default€by€raising€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏappellate€counsel€in€a€state€habeas€petition.€€(See€pp.€21„23,€òòinfraóó.)Ð €Ð ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à1.à8  àòòThe€special€case€of€procedurallyÐ `° Ðdefaulting€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€trial€counsel€by€failing€toÏfile€a€state€habeas€petitionóó.Ð0€ÈÈ ÐÌà ` àUnder€California€law,€the€vast€majority€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trialÏcounsel€claims€must€be€adjudicated€by€way€of€a€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus.€Ï(òòPeople€v.€Telloóó€(1997)€15€Cal.4th€264,€266„267.)€€This€is€so€since€the€record€onÐ ð@ Ðappeal€typically€does€not€reveal€the€tactical€reasons€which€prompted€trial€counselððsÏdecision€making.€€(òòIbidóó.)€Thus,€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€willÐ Ð  Ðusually€fail€on€direct€appeal.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð À! ÐñXñÌñXñà ` àIn€this€situation,€it€is€incumbent€upon€appellate€counsel€to€file€a€state€habeasÏpetition€in€order€to€properly€exhaust€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏIf€a€state€habeas€petition€is€not€filed,€the€federal€court€will€almost€certainly€hold€thatÏthe€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€was€procedurally€defaulted€in€stateÏcourt.€€(òòColeman€v.€Thompson,€supraóó,€501€U.S.€722,€731;€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]hisÔ_Ô€Court€has€long€heldÐ `'°"% Ðthat€a€state€prisonerððs€federal€habeas€petition€should€be€dismissed€if€the€prisoner€hasÏnot€exhausted€available€state€remedies€as€to€any€of€his€federal€claims.€[Citations.]ðð)ñYñÐ  @)$' ÐñYññZñÌÌñZñà ` àG.à8 ¸ àòòIf€Appellate€Counsel€Has€Procedurally€Defaulted€theÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔCase,€the€Default€Can€Be€Cured€by€Advancing€aÏClaim€of€Ineffective€Assistance€of€Appellate€CounselÏin€a€State€Habeas€Petition.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐóóÌà ` àAs€was€discussed€above,€there€are€a€myriad€of€procedural€defaults€which€canÏbe€committed€by€state€appellate€counsel.€€If€a€procedural€default€is€not€cured€in€òòstateóóÐ P   Ðcourt,€it€will€bar€future€federal€relief.€€(òòColeman€v.€Thompson,€supraóó,€501€U.S.€722,Ð @  Ð729„732.)€Fortunately,€there€is€an€easy€method€by€which€an€appellate€proceduralÏdefault€can€be€cured.Ìñ[ñÌñ[ñà ` àUnder€the€due€process€clause€of€the€federal€Constitution,€a€criminal€defendantÏenjoys€the€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel.€€(òòÔ_ÔEvittsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔLuceyÔ_ÔóóÐ ð@  Ð(1985)€469€U.S.€387,€393„400.)€Thus,€if€appellate€counsel€unreasonably€fails€to€raiseÏan€issue€or€otherwise€procedurally€defaults€an€issue€or€the€entire€appeal,€a€defendantÏmay€pursue€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel€on€state€habeas.€€ByÏexhausting€this€federal€issue€on€state€habeas,€the€defendant€can€then€proceed€toÏfederal€court€on€his€due€process€claim€and€the€underlying€issues€which€wouldÏotherwise€have€been€procedurally€defaulted.€€(See€òòDelgado€v.€Lewisóó€(9th€Cir.€2000)Ð à Ð223€F.3d€976,€979„981;€federal€writ€granted€where€state€appellate€counsel€performedÏineffectively€by€filing€a€òòWendeóó€brief€in€a€case€involving€an€arguably€meritoriousÐ pÀ Ðissue;€see€also€òòÔ_ÔYlstÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔNunnemakerÔ_Ôóó€(1991)€501€U.S.€797,€801;€ð ð[Ô_Ôs]tateÔ_Ô€procedural€barsÐ `° Ðare€not€immortal,€however;€they€may€expire€because€of€later€actions€by€state€courts.€ÏIf€the€last€state€court€to€be€presented€with€a€particular€federal€claim€reaches€theÏmerits,€it€removes€any€bar€to€federal„court€review€that€might€otherwise€have€beenÏavailable.ðð)Ìñ\ñÌñ\ñà ` àIn€short,€a€procedural€default€committed€by€appellate€counsel€can€always€beÏcured.€€However,€the€default€must€be€cured€prior€to€the€filing€of€a€federal€habeasÏpetition.ÌÌà@‘‘)ìàII.ˆÌà8 ` àTHE€PURSUIT€OF€A€FEDERAL€WRIT€OF€HABEAS€CORPUSÏREQUIRES€CLOSE€ATTENTION€TO€DETAIL.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà ` àThe€actual€litigation€of€a€federal€petition€for€writ€of€habeas€corpus€is€notÏsubstantially€different€from€state€appellate€practice.€€In€the€instance€of€a€pure€questionÏof€law€(e.g.€a€òòMirandaóó€claim€which€was€properly€raised€at€trial),€the€federal€litigationÐ `'°"% Ðconstitutes€a€de€facto€second€appeal.€€With€respect€to€questions€of€fact€(e.g.Ïineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€claims€where€an€OSC€was€not€issued€in€stateÏcourt),€the€evidentiary€hearing€held€in€federal€court€is€conducted€in€the€same€mannerÏas€such€a€hearing€in€state€court.€Thus,€an€experienced€state€appellate€practitionerÏshould€have€no€trouble€handling€the€briefing€and€evidentiary€aspects€of€federalÐ ,`'* Ðhabeas€practice.Ìñ]ñÌñ]ñà ` àThe€difficulty€of€federal€habeas€practice€is€becoming€acquainted€with€theÏenormous€number€of€procedural€rules€which€might€apply€in€any€given€case.€€TheÏunfortunate€reality€is€that€the€Attorney€General€is€eager€to€ruthlessly€employ€the€rulesÏin€order€to€avoid€the€merits€of€the€case.€€The€good€news€is€that€a€careful€defenseÏlawyer€can€avoid€òòallóó€of€the€procedural€pitfalls€which€might€doom€the€case.Ð P   Ðñ^ñÌñ^ñà ` àAs€was€discussed€in€section€I,€the€competent€handling€of€the€state€appellateÏlitigation€will€serve€to€avoid€any€possibility€of€procedural€default.€€Thus,€the€skillfulÏdefense€lawyer€will€arrive€in€federal€court€with€a€case€which€must€be€adjudicated€onÏthe€merits.Ìñ_ñÌñ_ñà ` àIn€the€discussion€which€follows,€many€of€the€critical€aspects€of€federal€habeasÏpractice€will€be€covered.€€However,€the€reader€should€not€presume€that€this€articleÏtouches€on€all€possible€topics€or€is€an€exhaustive€treatment€of€the€subject.€€As€wasÏnoted€in€the€Introduction,€counsel€should€turn€to€an€actual€treatise€for€such€anÏexposition€on€the€law.€(Hertz€and€Liebman,€Federal€Habeas€Corpus€Practice€andÏProcedure€(4th€ed.€2001.)Ìñ`ñÌÌÌÌÌñ`ñÌà ` àA.à8 ¸ àòòRelief€Can€Be€Obtained€Only€When€the€DefendantÐ pÀ ÐRemains€in€State€Custodyóó.Ð`°¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àA€federal€district€court€lacks€jurisdiction€to€adjudicate€a€petition€challengingÏa€state€conviction€unless€the€defendant€remains€in€state€ð ðcustody.ðð€(28€U.S.C.€sectionÏ2241(c)(3).)€€However,€ð ðcustodyðð€is€broadly€defined€to€include€those€defendants€whoÏare€at€liberty€on€parole€or€probation.€€(òòÔ_ÔMalengÔ_Ô€v.€Cookóó€(1989)€490€U.S.€488,€491.)Ð ` ÐñañÌñañà ` àImportantly,€the€jurisdiction€of€the€federal€court€continues€even€if€theÏdefendant€is€discharged€from€custody€during€the€pendency€of€the€federal€proceedings.€Ï(òòÔ_ÔMalengÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€490€U.S.€at€pp.€491„492.)€€So€long€as€the€defendant€is€in€custodyÐ Ð  Ðwhen€the€petition€is€filed€in€the€district€court,€the€defendant€may€appeal€his€case€allÏthe€way€to€the€Supreme€Court€even€if€he€is€released€early€in€the€federal€proceedings.€Ï(òòIbidóó.)Ð  #ð! ÐÌà ` àB.à8 ¸ àòòCounsel€Should€Be€Very€Cautious€in€Dealing€WithÐ €%Ð # Ðthe€One€Year€Statute€of€Limitationsóó.Ðp&À!$¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àUnder€28€U.S.C.€section€2244(d)(1),€a€federal€habeas€petition€must€be€filedÏwithin€one€year€of€the€finality€of€the€state€judgment.€€In€order€to€ensure€complianceÏwith€section€2244(d)(1),€the€petition€on€the€merits,€as€distinguished€from€aÏpreliminary€document,€must€be€filed€within€the€one€year€period.€€(òòWoodford€v.Ð  +p&) ÐÔ_ÔGarceauÔ_Ôóó€(March€25,€2003)€___€U.S.€___€[03€DAR€3287,€3288„3289];€the€filing€ofÐ ,`'* Ðmotions€for€the€appointment€of€counsel€and€a€stay€of€execution€did€not€constitute€theÏfiling€of€a€petition.)€ÌñbñÌñbñà ` àOn€a€California€appeal,€the€judgment€is€final€on€the€day€when€the€CaliforniaÏSupreme€Court€denies€a€petition€for€review.€€(California€Rules€of€Court,€ruleÏ29.4(b)(2)(A).)€€The€one€year€period€begins€to€run€on€the€date€when€either:€(1)€aÏpetition€for€writ€of€certiorari€to€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€is€denied;€or€(2)€the€90€dayÏperiod€in€which€to€seek€certiorari€has€run€when€no€petition€was€filed.€€(òòClay€v.€UnitedÐ @  ÐStatesóó€(2003)€___€U.S.€___€[155€L.E.2d€88,€94„95€and€fn.€3.)€€òòóóThe€one€year€periodÐ 0 € Ðcommences€on€the€day€after€the€judgment€has€become€final.€€(òòÔ_ÔCorjassoÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAyersÔ_Ôóó€(9thÐ  p  ÐCir.€2002)€278€F.3d€874,€877.)€ÌñcñÌñcñà ` àImportantly,€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations€is€tolled€while€a€post„appealÏstate€habeas€petition€is€pending.€€(28€U.S.C.€section€2244(d)(2).)€€If€a€CaliforniaÏdefendant€files€sequential€habeas€petitions€in€the€Superior€Court,€the€Court€of€AppealÏand€the€Supreme€Court,€the€time€between€the€denial€of€one€habeas€petition€and€theÏfiling€of€a€new€petition€in€a€higher€court€is€tolled€so€long€as€the€degree€of€delay€isÏreasonable.€€(òòCarey€v.€Ô_ÔSaffoldÔ_Ôóó€(2002)€536€U.S.€214€[153€L.E.2d€260,€267„272].)€Ð  ð ÐUnder€this€rule,€counsel€must€file€each€state€habeas€petition€with€great€dispatch.€InÏthis€way,€any€conceivable€procedural€default€can€be€avoided.ÌñdñÌñdñà ` àIt€is€worth€noting€that€the€Attorney€General€has€taken€the€position€that€anyÏdelay€beyond€60€days€in€the€filing€of€a€new€petition€is€per€se€unreasonable.€€(òòÔ_ÔSaffoldÔ_ÔÐ P  Ðv.€Careyóó€(9th€Cir.€2002)€312€F.3d€1031,€1034.)€€While€it€is€uncertain€whether€theÐ @ ÐNinth€Circuit€will€accept€this€argument,€counsel€should€strive€to€avoid€any€problemÏby€filing€the€renewed€petition€before€60€days€has€passed.ÌñeñÌñeñà ` àOnce€the€California€Supreme€Court€has€denied€a€habeas€petition,€two€rulesÏcome€into€play.€€If€the€court€has€not€issued€an€order€to€show€cause,€the€denial€is€finalÏimmediately.€€(California€Rules€of€Court,€rule€29.4(b)(2)(C).)€€In€addition,€the€periodÏduring€which€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€is€pending€is€not€tolled.€€(òòMiller€v.Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔDragovichÔ_Ôóó€(3rd€Cir.€2002)€311€F.3d€574,€578„579.)Ð À! ÐñfñÌñfñà ` àFinally,€the€Ninth€Circuit€has€allowed€for€equitable€tolling€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€in€appropriate€cases.€€(òòÔ_ÔCorjassoÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAyersÔ_Ôóó,€òòsupraóó,€278€F.3d€874,€877.)€Ð $à" ÐHowever,€the€defendant€bears€a€heavy€burden€in€establishing€grounds€for€relief.€Ï(òòIbidóó.)€€Thus,€counsel€should€do€everything€possible€to€expeditiously€file€a€federalÐ p&À!$ Ðhabeas€petition€long€before€the€statute€of€limitations€has€run.€€(But€see€òòÔ_ÔStillmanÔ_Ô€v.Ð `'°"% ÐÔ_ÔLaMarqueÔ_Ôóó€(9th€Cir.€2003)€319€F.3d€1199,€1201„1203;€even€though€defense€counselÐ P( #& Ðwaited€until€the€last€day€possible,€equitable€tolling€was€allowed€since€the€prisonÏfailed€to€honor€its€promise€to€immediately€deliver€papers€to€the€defendant€for€hisÏsignature.)€ÌÐ ,`'* Ðà ` àC.à8 ¸ àòòIf€a€State€Procedural€Default€Issue€Arises,€CounselÐ ° ÐShould€Be€Aware€That€There€Are€a€Number€ofÏDoctrines€Which€May€Be€Used€to€Address€theÏProblem.óóЀи ¸  ÐÌà ` àUnder€the€independent€and€adequate€state€grounds€doctrine,€federal€courtsÏð ðwill€not€review€a€question€of€federal€law€decided€by€a€state€court€if€the€decision€ofÏthat€court€rests€on€a€state€law€ground€that€is€independent€of€the€federal€question€andÏadequate€to€support€the€judgment.€[Citations.]ðð€€(òòColeman€v.€Thompson,€supraóó,€501Ð 0 € ÐU.S.€722,€729.)€€However,€a€federal€court€may€not€blindly€accept€a€state€courtððsÏfinding€of€procedural€default.€€The€adequacy€of€an€alleged€state€procedural€bar€ð ðððisÏitself€a€federal€questionðððð€to€be€determined€by€the€federal€court.€€(òòLee€v.€Ô_ÔKemnaÔ_ÔóóÐ P  Ð(2002)€534€U.S.€362,€375.)€ÌñgñÌñgñà ` àThe€nature€of€state€procedural€defaults€are€potentially€infinite.€TypicalÏexamples€include:€€(1)€forfeiture€of€an€issue€due€to€the€failure€to€render€an€adequateÏtrial€court€objection;€(2)€failure€to€comply€with€a€rule€of€state€appellate€procedure;Ïand€(3)€failure€to€comply€with€a€rule€of€state€habeas€procedure.€Given€the€plethoraÏof€possible€state€procedural€defaults,€this€article€cannot€provide€a€detailed€analysisÏof€the€topic.€€However,€a€few€general€points€should€be€kept€in€mind.ÌñhñÌñhñà ` àThe€doctrine€of€independent€and€adequate€state€grounds€rests€on€theÏprinciples€of€comity€and€federalism:€A€federal€court€will€not€reverse€a€state€courtÏjudgment€which€was€based€on€a€lawful€state€ground.€€(òòColeman€v.€Thompson,€supraóó,Ð @ Ð501€U.S.€722,€730.)€€However,€the€state€court€judgment€must€demonstrably€rest€onÏstate€grounds.€€A€ð ðððprocedural€default€based€on€an€ambiguous€order€that€does€notÏclearly€rest€on€independent€and€adequate€state€grounds€is€not€sufficient€to€precludeÏfederal€collateral€review.ðð€[Citation.]ðð€(òòÔ_ÔValerioÔ_Ô€v.€Crawfordóó€(9th€Cir.€2002)€306€F.3dÐ P Ð742,€774.)ò òÐ ð@ Ðó óñiñÌñiñà ` àFor€a€state€procedural€rule€to€be€ð ðindependent,ðð€the€state€law€basis€for€aÏdecision€must€not€be€interwoven€with€federal€law.€€(òòMichigan€v.€Longóó€(1983)€463Ð À! ÐU.S.€1032,€1040„1041.)€€A€state€law€ground€is€so€interwoven€if€application€of€theÏprocedural€bar€depends€on€an€antecedent€ruling€on€a€federal€question€such€as€theÏdetermination€of€whether€federal€constitutional€error€has€been€committed.€€(òòBennettÐ $à" Ðv.€Muelleróó€(9th€Cir.€2003)€322€F.3d€573€[03€DAR€2442,€2444„2445].)€Ð €%Ð # ÐñjñÌñjñà ` àAn€example€of€an€independent€state€ground€is€the€California€Supreme€CourtððsÏannounced€rule€that€the€denial€of€an€untimely€habeas€petition€rests€on€state€law.€€(òòInÐ P( #& Ðre€Robbinsóó€(1998)€18€Cal.4th€770,€811„812€and€fn.€32.)€€Given€the€clarity€of€theÐ @)$' ÐòòRobbinsóó€rule,€the€Ninth€Circuit€has€acknowledged€that€it€is€independent€of€federalÐ 0*€%( Ðlaw.€€(òòBennett,€supraóó,€03€DAR€at€p.€2445.)€€However,€the€issue€still€remains€as€toÐ  +p&) Ðwhether€the€òòRobbinsóó€rule€is€ð ðadequateðð€to€bar€federal€review.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€2447;Ð ,`'* Ðremanding€the€issue€of€adequacy€to€the€district€court.)ÌñkñÌñkñà ` àThe€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€a€state€rule€is€not€ð ðadequateðð€unless€it€isÏstrictly€and€regularly€followed.€€(òòFord€v.€Georgiaóó€(1991)€498€U.S.€411,€423„424.)€Ð €Ð ÐIn€the€Ninth€Circuit,€the€government€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€the€state€rule€isÏstrictly€and€regularly€followed.€€(òòBennett€v.€Mueller,€supraóó,€03€DAR€2442,€2446„Ð ` ° Ð2447.)€€òòóóMorever,€the€government€must€establish€that€the€procedural€rule€was€ð ðððwellÐ P   Ðestablishedðððð€at€the€time€of€the€alleged€default.€€(òòÔ_ÔValerioÔ_Ô€v.€Crawford,€supraóó,€306Ð @  ÐF.3d€742,€776.)ÌñlñÌñlñà ` àIn€the€context€of€evidentiary€issues,€the€Courts€of€Appeal€in€California€oftenÏfind€imaginary€defects€in€the€objections€made€at€trial.€Thus,€the€courts€find€the€issueÏto€be€forfeited€on€appeal.€€In€this€type€of€case,€the€government€cannot€show€that€theÏprocedural€default€is€one€which€is€strictly€and€regularly€enforced.ÌñmñÌñmñà ` àòòÔ_ÔMelendezÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔPlilerÔ_Ôóó€(9th€Cir.€2002)€288€F.3d€1120€illustrates€this€point.€There,Ð À Ðdefense€counsel€€rendered€a€Confrontation€Clause€objection€to€an€insufficientlyÏredacted€tape€of€a€co„defendantððs€statement.€€The€objection€was€made€before€the€tapeÏwas€played€to€the€jury.€€However,€the€trial€court€overruled€the€objection€on€the€basisÏthat€it€came€too€late.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€held€that€the€Sixth€Amendment€issue€wasÏwaived.€€The€Ninth€Circuit€disagreed€and€held€that€there€was€no€consistently€appliedÏCalifornia€authority€in€support€of€the€finding€of€waiver.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€1126.)€€Indeed,€toÐ `° Ðthe€contrary,€the€court€cited€California€cases€where€insufficient€objections€wereÏdeemed€adequate€for€purposes€of€appellate€review.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð @ ÐñnñÌñnñà ` àIt€is€also€critical€to€note€that€a€federal€court€will€not€credit€an€alleged€stateÏprocedural€default€when€it€quite€simply€makes€no€sense.€€In€this€regard,€the€SupremeÏCourt€has€cautioned€that€procedural€default€cannot€be€found€on€the€basis€of€a€stateÏcourtððs€resort€to€a€ð ðparticular€labelðð€which€results€in€ð ðððan€arid€ritual€of€meaninglessÏform,€.€.€.€[which€does€not€further€a]€perceivable€state€interest,€.€.€.€.ðððð€€(òòJames€v.Ð à0 ÐKentuckyóó€(1984)€466€U.S.€341,€349.)€Thus,€in€òòJamesóó€the€court€held€that€a€federalÐ Ð  Ðclaim€was€not€defaulted€under€a€state€law€technicality€when€defense€counsel€askedÏfor€an€ð ðadmonitionðð€rather€than€an€ð ðinstruction.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€348„351;€see€also€òòLeeÐ °"  Ðv.€Ô_ÔKemnaÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€534€U.S.€362,€375„388;€failure€to€make€a€written€motion€for€aÐ  #ð! Ðcontinuance€as€required€by€state€law€did€not€bar€federal€review€since€counselððs€oralÏmotion€ð ðsubstantially€compliedðð€with€the€purpose€of€the€statute.)ÌñoñÌñoñà ` àUnder€Ninth€Circuit€case€law,€a€state€procedural€default€will€not€be€creditedÏif€the€state€court€had€discretion€to€make€a€contrary€decision.€€In€òòMcKenna€v.Ð P( #& ÐÔ_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó€(9th€Cir.€1995)€65€F.3d€1483,€the€Nevada€Supreme€Court€found€aÐ @)$' Ðprocedural€default€on€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€since€the€issue€raised€hadÏnot€been€advanced€on€the€petitionerððs€prior€appeal.€While€acknowledging€that€theÏNevada€Supreme€Courtððs€procedural€ruling€was€correct€under€state€law,€the€NinthÐ ,`'* ÐCircuit€nonetheless€found€that€it€did€not€constitute€an€adequate€basis€for€the€denialÏof€federal€review.€This€was€so€because€the€Nevada€Supreme€Court€also€had€a€rule€ofÏdiscretion€which€allowed€for€the€raising€of€new€claims€on€a€post„conviction€petition.€ÏThus,€since€the€Nevada€Supreme€Court€had€simply€refused€ð ðto€exercise€discretion€toÏhear€the€claim,ðð€federal€review€was€not€barred.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€1489;€accord,€òòÔ_ÔValerioÔ_Ô€v.Ð pÀ ÐCrawford,€supraóó,€306€F.3d€at€p.€778;€but€see€òòBennett€v.€Mueller,€supraóó,€03€DARÐ ` ° Ð2442,€2445;€ð ða€state€courtððs€exercise€of€judicial€discretion€will€not€necessarily€renderÏa€rule€inadequate€to€support€a€state€decision,€.€.€.€.ðð)ÌñpñÌñpñà ` àThe€òòMcKennaóó€analysis€has€potentially€broad€ramifications.€For€example,Ð  p  ÐCalifornia€law€holds€that€constitutional€issues€can€sometimes€be€raised€for€the€firstÏtime€on€appeal€when€they€involve€undisputed€facts.€€(òòHale€v.€Morganóó€(1978)€22Ð P  ÐCal.3d€388,€394.)€€Since€this€rule€essentially€provides€an€appellate€court€withÏdiscretion€to€reach€the€merits€of€an€issue,€òòMcKennaóó€provides€a€basis€for€arguing€thatÐ à0  Ðfederal€review€is€not€barred€even€if€the€state€court€found€a€procedural€default.ÌñqñÌñqñà ` àFinally,€it€should€be€noted€that€Professors€Liebman€and€Hertz€have€preparedÏan€excellent€analysis€regarding€the€theories€which€might€be€advanced€to€defeat€aÏclaim€of€state€procedural€default.€€(2€Hertz€and€Liebman,€Federal€Habeas€CorpusÏPractice€and€Procedure,€òòsupraóó,€chapter€26,€pp.€1133„1240.)€€Regardless€of€theÐ €Ð Ðdifficulty€of€the€problem€in€a€particular€case,€the€analysis€posited€by€the€professorsÏshould€be€of€great€practical€use.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à1.à8  àòòAssuming€That€the€Government€CanÐ @ ÐPoint€to€a€Legitimate€State€ProceduralÏDefault,€the€Defense€Can€Still€Seek€toÏExcuse€the€Default€by€Showing€CauseÏand€Prejudice€or€a€Miscarriage€ofÏJustice.Ð ÈÈ ÐóóÌà ` àIf€a€defendant€has€defaulted€his€federal€claim€in€state€court€pursuant€to€aÏlegitimate€state€procedural€rule,€he€may€still€obtain€federal€habeas€review€byÏdemonstrating€ð ðcause€for€the€default€and€actual€prejudice€as€a€result€of€the€allegedÏviolation€of€federal€law,€or€[by€demonstrating]€that€failure€to€consider€the€claims€willÏresult€in€a€fundamental€miscarriage€of€justice.ðð€€(òòColeman€v.€Thompson,€supraóó,€501Ð $à" ÐU.S.€722,€750.)€€As€a€practical€matter,€it€will€be€difficult€to€satisfy€either€of€theseÏexceptions.€€However,€in€some€cases,€counsel€may€have€to€make€the€attempt.ÌñrñÌñrñà ` àð ðCauseðð€for€a€procedural€default€exists€if€the€defendant€ð ðððcan€show€that€someÏobjective€factor€external€to€the€defense€impeded€counselððs€efforts€to€comply€with€theÏStateððs€procedural€rule.ðððð€(òòStrickler€v.€Greeneóó€(1999)€527€U.S.€263,€283„284,€fn.€24.)€Ð 0*€%( ÐAlthough€the€category€of€ð ðððobjective€impedimentsðððð€is€difficult€to€define,€theÏSupreme€Court€has€indicated€that€ð ððða€showing€that€the€factual€or€legal€basis€for€aÐ ,`'* Ðclaim€was€not€reasonably€available€to€counsel€.€.€.€would€constitute€cause€under€thisÏstandard.ðð€[Citations.]ðð€(òòIbidóó.)Ð  ð ÐñsñÌñsñà ` àòòStrickleróó€provides€an€example€of€a€case€where€ð ðcauseðð€was€shown.€There,€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€sought€to€bring€a€belated€òòBradyóó€claim€in€federal€court.€€After€finding€thatÐ pÀ Ðthe€government€had€impeded€defense€counselððs€access€to€the€relevant€information,Ïthe€Supreme€Court€found€ð ðcauseðð€for€the€failure€to€bring€the€claim€in€state€court.€Ï(òòStrickler,€supraóó,€527€U.S.€at€pp.€282„289.)Ð @  ÐñtñÌñtñà ` àIt€is€essential€to€note€that€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€may€suffice€toÏshow€ð ðcauseðð€with€respect€to€defaults€which€occurred€at€trial€or€on€appeal.€€(òòColemanÐ `  Ðv.€Thompson,€supraóó,€501€U.S.€722,€753„754.)€€However,€defaults€committed€byÐ P  Ðcounsel€during€habeas€proceedings€cannot€constitute€ð ðcauseðð€since€a€defendant€hasÏno€constitutional€right€to€counsel€during€a€collateral€proceeding.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€755„757;Ð à0  Ðfederal€habeas€relief€was€barred€in€a€capital€case€since€defense€counsel€failed€to€fileÏa€timely€notice€of€appeal€in€the€state€habeas€proceedings.)ÌñuñÌñuñà ` àWith€respect€to€the€requisite€showing€of€ð ðprejudice,ðð€the€Supreme€Court€hasÏyet€to€provide€an€express€test.€€(See€òòÔ_ÔAmadeoÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔZantÔ_Ôóó€(1988)€486€U.S.€214,€221;Ð à Ðleaving€the€question€open.)€€However,€without€discussion,€the€court€equatedÏð ðprejudiceðð€in€òòStrickleróó€with€the€prejudice€test€for€the€underlying€constitutional€claimÐ pÀ Ð(a€òòBradyóó€violation).€€(òòStrickler€v.€Greene,€supraóó,€527€U.S.€263,€289„296.)€€Thus,€itÐ `° Ðis€reasonable€to€assume€that€a€showing€of€ð ðprejudiceðð€will€generally€require€theÏdefendant€to€show€that€the€underlying€constitutional€error€ð ðððhad€substantial€andÏinjurious€effect€or€influence€in€determining€the€juryððs€verdict.ðð€[Citation.]ðð€(òòBrechtÐ 0€ Ðv.€Abrahamsonóó€(1993)€507€U.S.€619,€623.)€€This€is€so€because€òòBrechtóó€is€theÐ  p Ðcontrolling€test€for€prejudice€in€federal€habeas€cases.€€(2€Hertz€and€Liebman,€FederalÏHabeas€Corpus€Practice€and€Procedure,€òòsupraóó,€chapter€26.3(c),€pp.€1219„1225;€seeÐ P Ðalso€pp.€43„46,€òòinfraóó,€for€a€discussion€of€òòBrechtóó.)Ð ð@ ÐñvñÌñvñà ` àAside€from€the€ð ðcause€and€prejudiceðð€test,€a€defendant€may€also€contend€thatÏa€procedural€default€should€be€ignored€in€order€to€avoid€a€ð ðfundamental€miscarriageÏof€justice.ðð€€(òòSchlup€v.€Deloóó€(1995)€513€U.S.€298,€321.)€€Typically,€this€exceptionÐ °"  Ðapplies€when€the€defendant€has€a€plausible€claim€that€he€is€actually€innocent.€€InÏorder€to€prevail,€the€defendant€must€show€ð ðthat€it€is€more€likely€than€not€that€noÏreasonable€juror€would€have€convicted€him€in€light€of€the€new€evidence.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.Ð €%Ð # Ð327.)€While€this€is€a€difficult€standard€to€satisfy,€it€is€a€fact„intensive€claim€whichÏshould€be€raised€in€an€appropriate€case.ñwñÐ  `'°"% ÐñwññxñÌÌñxñà ` àD.à8 ¸ àòòIf€a€New€Claim€Arises€after€the€Federal€Petition€IsÐ ° ÐFiled,€the€Defendant€Can€Seek€Leave€to€Return€toÏState€Court€in€Order€to€Exhaust€the€Claim.óóÐภ¸  ÐÌà ` àOccasionally,€a€case€will€arise€where€appellate€counsel€becomes€aware€of€aÏnew€issue€after€the€federal€habeas€petition€has€already€been€filed.€€In€thisÏcircumstance,€the€appropriate€procedure€is€to€seek€an€order€holding€the€federalÏproceedings€in€abeyance€while€the€new€claim€is€exhausted€in€state€court.ÌñyñÌñyñà ` àIn€this€regard,€a€federal€court€is€required€to€dismiss€without€prejudice€aÏpetition€which€includes€both€exhausted€and€unexhausted€claims.€€(òòRose€v.€LundyóóÐ `  Ð(1982)€455€U.S.€509,€520„522.)€€However,€on€the€defendantððs€motion,€the€court€hasÏthe€discretion€to€stay€ð ðthe€petition€after€dismissal€of€unexhausted€claims,€in€order€toÏpermit€Petitioner€to€exhaust€those€claims€and€then€add€them€by€amendment€to€hisÏstayed€federal€petition.ðð€€(òòKelly€v.€Small,€supraóó,€315€F.3d€1063,€1070.)€€ð ðThe€exerciseÐ Ð  Ðof€discretion€to€stay€the€federal€proceeding€is€particularly€appropriate€when€anÏoutright€dismissal€will€render€it€unlikely€or€impossible€for€the€Petitioner€to€return€toÏfederal€court€within€the€one€year€limitation€period€imposed€by€.€.€.€28€U.S.C.€ððÏ2244(d).ðð€€(òòIbidóó.)€€Ð à ÐñzñÌñzñà ` àAs€the€Ninth€Circuit€has€made€clear,€the€district€court€has€ð ðdiscretionðð€toÏrefuse€a€stay.€€(òòKelly,€supraóó,€315€F.3d€at€p.€1070.)€€However,€the€court€has€joined€theÐ `° Ðconsensus€of€other€circuits€ð ðin€recognizing€the€clear€appropriateness€of€a€stay€whenÏvalid€claims€would€otherwise€be€forfeited.ðð€€(òòIbidóó.)€Ð @ Ðñ{ñÌñ{ñà ` àAssuming€that€the€district€court€agrees€to€hold€the€case€in€abeyance,€theÏdefendant€must,€of€course,€pursue€state€relief€in€a€diligent€manner.€€The€Ninth€CircuitÏhas€suggested€that€a€district€court€should€allow€30€days€for€the€filing€of€the€stateÏpetition€and€30€days€for€the€filing€of€the€amended€federal€petition€following€entry€ofÏfinal€judgment€by€the€California€Supreme€Court.€€(òòKelly€v.€Small,€supraóó,€315€F.3d€atÐ à0 Ðp.€1071.)Ìñ|ñÌñ|ñà ` àAs€should€be€readily€apparent,€it€is€a€dangerous€tactic€to€allow€the€dismissalÏof€a€federal€petition€without€a€stay€order.€€This€is€so€since€the€one€year€statute€ofÏlimitations€will€continue€to€run€during:€(1)€the€period€between€the€dismissal€of€theÏfederal€petition€and€the€filing€of€the€new€petition€in€state€court;€and€(2)€the€periodÏbetween€the€denial€in€state€court€and€the€filing€of€the€new€federal€petition.€€Thus,€ifÏthe€district€court€declines€to€issue€a€stay€order,€it€is€probably€best€to€drop€theÏunexhausted€claims€unless€counsel€is€confident€that€he€will€have€sufficient€time€toÏprepare€the€new€state€and€federal€pleadings€before€the€one€year€statute€of€limitationsÏruns€out.ñ}ñÐ  0*€%( Ðñ}ññ~ñÌÌñ~ñà ` àE.à0 ¸ àòòCommencing€the€Case€in€Federal€District€Court.а¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àóóThere€are€two€methods€by€which€the€case€can€be€commenced€in€the€federalÐ à Ðdistrict€court:€(1)€use€of€the€official€form;€or€(2)€a€pleading€prepared€by€counsel.€€AsÏa€matter€of€law,€the€district€court€will€proceed€in€the€same€manner€regardless€ofÏwhich€document€is€filed.€€However,€the€choice€to€file€a€pleading€may€have€significantÏconsequences€for€counsel.ÌññÌññà ` àUnder€federal€law,€an€indigent€state€prisoner€has€no€right€to€the€appointmentÏof€counsel.€€(òòColeman€v.€Thompson,€supraóó,€501€U.S.€722,€756.)€Thus,€if€counselÐ  p  Ðmakes€an€appearance€by€filing€a€habeas€petition,€the€court€will€look€to€him€or€her€asÏcounsel€of€record.€€While€counsel€can€seek€a€court€appointment,€none€may€beÏforthcoming.€€Thus,€counsel€should€not€prepare€and€file€a€habeas€petition€unless€heÏor€she€is€prepared€to€handle€the€case€on€a€pro€bono€basis.Ìñ€ñÌñ€ñà ` àOne€method€of€proceeding€is€for€counsel€to€assist€the€defendant€by€filling€outÏthe€official€form.€€Along€with€the€form,€the€defendant€can€file€a€motion€asking€thatÏhis€former€appellate€counsel€be€appointed.€€If€the€motion€is€granted,€counsel€canÏformally€appear€and€be€compensated.€€If€the€motion€is€denied,€counsel€can€thenÏdecide€whether€to€assist€the€client€pro€bono.ÌññÌññà ` àIf€the€official€form€is€used,€only€the€original€need€be€filed.€(Habeas€CorpusÏLocal€Rules€for€the€Northern€District,€rule€2254„3(g).)€€If€counsel€prepares€theÏpetition,€the€original€and€one€copy€must€be€filed.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð @ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à1.à0  àòòThe€Official€FormóóÐ pÐ Ð  ÐÌà ` àThe€official€form€is€found€in€the€Appendix€to€the€Rules€Governing€SectionÏ2254€Cases€In€The€United€States€District€Court.€€The€form€is€also€available€at€theÏclerkððs€office€of€each€district€court.€€Finally,€the€form€can€also€be€downloaded€atÏÔ4‚ÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôwww.cand.uscourts.gov.Ô6ÈöÔÝ‚ÍOÜö.ÐÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7só¾ ÷ÔÐ Ð  Ðñ‚ñÌñ‚ñà ` àIt€is€a€simple€matter€for€appellate€counsel€to€complete€the€form.€€The€task€canÏbe€accomplished€in€less€than€an€hour.€€If€counsel€is€not€going€to€assist€€the€client€inÏfederal€court,€it€is€a€matter€of€professional€courtesy€to€complete€the€form€for€theÏclient€and€provide€instructions€as€to€how€to€file€it.ÌñƒñÌñƒñà ` àIn€filling€out€the€form,€counsel€(or€the€client)€must€carefully€and€preciselyÏstate€the€nature€of€each€federal€issue€and€the€constitutional€provision€under€which€theÏissue€arises.€€In€order€to€establish€the€bona€fides€of€the€issue,€it€is€appropriate€toÏattach€the€petition€for€review€as€an€appendix.€€In€this€way,€the€court€will€have€a€fullÏunderstanding€of€the€issue€presented.ÌÐ ,`'* Ðà ` àà ¸ à2.à0  àòòThe€Civil€Cover€SheetóóаРР ÐÌà ` àWhen€the€official€form€(or€an€attorneyððs€pleading)€is€presented€to€the€districtÏcourt,€it€must€be€accompanied€by€a€civil€cover€sheet.€€The€form€can€be€downloadedÏat€Ô4‚sóÊÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  Ôwww.cand.uscourts.gov.Ô6ûÔÝ‚ÍO±û€€(òÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7we€ßûԀРpÀ ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à3.à8  àòòThe€Application€for€in€Forma€PauperisÐ P   ÐStatusóóÐ@ ÈÈ ÐÌà ` àThe€filing€fee€for€a€section€2254€petition€is€only€$5.€€However,€if€theÏdefendant€is€indigent,€he€can€avoid€the€filing€fee€by€completing€the€In€FormaÏPauperis€Application€portion€of€the€official€form.€€Ìñ„ñÌñ„ñà ` àIf€the€defendant€is€incarcerated,€the€application€must€be€accompanied€by:€(1)Ïthe€signed€certificate€of€a€prison€custodian;€and€(2)€the€prisonððs€printout€reflecting€theÏprior€six€months€of€activity€in€the€defendantððs€prison€account.€€Absent€theseÏdocuments,€the€court€will€not€grant€the€application.Ìñ…ñÌñ…ñà ` àIt€is€critical€to€note€that€CDC€is€typically€quite€slow€in€providing€the€requisiteÏdocumentation€concerning€the€defendantððs€prison€account.€Thus,€the€defendantÏshould€request€the€information€well€before€the€one€year€statute€of€limitations€is€dueÏto€run.€€If€the€information€cannot€be€obtained€in€time,€the€petition€should€be€filedÏwithout€the€in€forma€pauperis€application.€€In€forma€pauperis€status€can€always€beÏsought€at€a€later€time.Ìñ†ñÌñ†ñà ` àAside€from€avoiding€the€$5€filing€fee,€in€forma€pauperis€status€is€necessaryÏif€the€defendant€wishes€to€obtain€the€services€of€appointed€counsel€or€ancillaryÏservices.€€These€topics€are€discussed€below.€€(See€p.€42,€òòinfraóó.)Ð P ÐÌà ` àà ¸ à4.à8  àòòThe€Format€For€An€Attorney€PreparedÐ à0 ÐPleading.óóÐÐ ÈÈ ÐÌà ` àIn€the€Northern€District,€the€official€form€need€not€be€used.€€It€is€permissibleÏfor€counsel€(or€the€client)€to€file€a€habeas€petition€so€long€as€it€ð ðcontains€all€of€theÏinformation€required€by€the€Courtððs€form.ðð€€(Habeas€Corpus€Local€Rules€for€theÏNorthern€District,€Rule€2254„3(d).)Ìñ‡ñÌñ‡ñà ` àThe€format€for€the€petition€is€virtually€identical€to€that€used€for€a€state€habeasÏpetition.€€The€petition€has€three€essential€components:€(1)€the€pleading;€(2)€theÏverification;€and€(3)€the€points€and€authorities.ÌñˆñÌñˆñà ` àThe€pleading€section€must€allege:€(1)€an€unlawful€restraint€on€the€petitionerððsÏliberty;€(2)€if€he€is€incarcerated,€the€place€of€his€imprisonment€and€the€name€of€theÐ ,`'* Ðprison€custodian;€(3)€the€judgment€upon€which€the€petitionerððs€restraint€is€based;€(4)Ïthe€procedural€facts€which€establish€compliance€with€the€one€year€statute€ofÏlimitations;€(5)€the€procedural€facts€establishing€that€the€petitioner€has€exhausted€hisÏstate€remedies;€(6)€the€procedural€facts€establishing€that€federal€claims€were€raisedÏin€state€court;€(7)€the€federal€claims€upon€which€relief€is€sought;€and€(8)€a€prayer€forÏrelief.Ìñ‰ñÌñ‰ñà ` àThe€verification€should€follow€the€pleading€section.€€It€should€be€signed€byÏthe€defendant.ÌñŠñÌñŠñà ` àThe€memorandum€of€points€and€authorities€should€closely€resemble€anÏappellantððs€opening€brief.€€It€should€commence€with€an€appropriate€statement€of€factsÏwhich€should€be€followed€by€legal€argument.€€There€should€be€separate€sectionsÏwhich€discuss€the€federal€habeas€standard€for€prejudice€and€the€AEDPA€standard€forÏobtaining€relief.€€(See€pp.€43„55,€infra.)ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à5.à8  àòòThe€State€Court€Record€Need€Not€BeÐ ° ÐFiled€with€the€Official€Form€orÏAttorney€Prepared€Petition.óóÐàÈÈ ÐÌà ` àAs€a€matter€of€practice,€the€Northern€District€does€not€expect€the€defendantÏto€provide€a€copy€of€the€state€court€record.€€When€the€court€issues€an€OSC,€it€directsÏthe€Attorney€General€to€lodge€the€state€court€record.€€(See€Habeas€Corpus€LocalÏRules€for€the€Northern€District,€rule€2254„6(b)(3).)ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à6.à0  àòòVenueóóÐ pÐ Ð  ÐÌà ` àNoncapital€petitions€must€be€filed€with€the€Northern€District€at€its€SanÏFrancisco€courthouse€at€450€Golden€Gate€Avenue,€Box€36060,€San€Francisco,€CAÏ94102.€€(Habeas€Corpus€Local€Rules€for€the€Northern€District,€rule€2254„3(c).)€€TheÏcourt€will€then€randomly€assign€a€judge.€€Although€most€Northern€District€judges€sitÏin€San€Francisco,€some€judges€sit€in€Oakland€and€San€Jose.€€Thus,€the€case€may€beÏheard€in€one€of€those€venues€depending€upon€which€judge€is€assigned€to€the€case.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à7.à8  àòòThe€Motion€for€Appointment€ofÐ $à" ÐCounselóó.Ѐ%Ð #ÈÈ ÐÌà ` àUnder€18€U.S.C.€section€3006A(a)(2)(B),€the€district€court€has€discretion€toÏappoint€counsel.€€In€my€experience,€many€federal€judges€will€grant€a€motion€forÏappointment€of€counsel.€Ìñ‹ñÌñ‹ñà ` àIf€an€evidentiary€hearing€is€required€to€properly€resolve€the€case,€theÏdefendant€is€entitled€to€the€appointment€of€counsel€as€a€matter€of€right.€€(RulesÐ ,`'* ÐGoverning€Section€2254€Cases€In€The€United€States€District€Courts,€rule€8(c).)€ÏObviously,€if€counsel€believes€that€an€evidentiary€hearing€will€be€required,€this€factÏshould€be€made€known€in€the€motion€for€appointment€of€counsel.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ à8.à8  àòòThe€Motion€for€Ancillary€Services.óóÐpÀÈÈ ÐÌà ` àPursuant€to€18€U.S.C.€section€3006A(e)(1),€a€defendant€may€request€fees€toÏhire€an€investigator€or€expert€witness.€€Obviously,€a€request€for€fees€must€beÏsupported€by€a€detailed€motion€which€explains€the€necessity€for€the€investigator€orÏexpert.€€The€motion€may€be€filed€ex€parte€since€the€Attorney€General€has€no€legalÏinterest€in€the€motion.ÌñŒñÌñŒñà ` àIn€making€the€motion,€it€is€important€to€advise€the€court€whether€the€stateÏcourt€provided€any€ancillary€services€on€appeal€or€habeas€corpus.€€Obviously,€if€suchÏservices€were€requested€and€denied€in€state€court,€the€federal€court€will€be€moreÏlikely€to€grant€the€motion.ÌÌà ` àF.à8 ¸ àòòThe€Defendant€Must€Usually€Satisfy€The€òòBrechtóóÐ  ð ÐStandard€In€Order€to€Obtain€Reliefóó.Ðภ¸  ÐÌà ` àIn€its€seminal€decision€in€òòBrecht€v.€Abrahamson,€supraóó,€507€U.S.€619,€theÐ pÀ ÐSupreme€Court€announced€that€a€habeas€petitioner€may€obtain€relief€only€upon€aÏshowing€that€an€error€ð ðððhad€substantial€and€injurious€effect€or€influence€inÏdetermining€the€juryððs€verdict.ðð€[Citation.]ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€623.)€€Although€there€areÐ @ Ðinstances€where€the€òòBrechtóó€test€does€not€apply,€the€defendant€will€have€to€satisfyÐ 0€ ÐòòBrechtóó€in€the€vast€majority€of€cases.Ð  p ÐññÌññà ` àAt€the€outset,€it€is€important€to€note€that€the€court€must€ð ðindependentlyðð€applyÏthe€òòBrechtóó€test€ð ðwithout€consideration€of€burdens€of€proof.€[Citations.]ðð€€(òòMancusoÐ ð@ Ðv.€Ô_ÔOlivarezÔ_Ôóó€(9th€Cir.€2002)€292€F.3d€939,€949,€fn.€4.)€€However,€if€the€court€has€aÐ à0 Ðð ðgrave€doubtðð€about€the€harmlessness€of€the€error€(i.e.€if€the€case€is€evenly€balancedÏor€in€ð ðvirtual€equipoiseðð),€the€court€must€find€reversible€error.€€(òòÔ_ÔOððNealÔ_Ô€v.€McAninchóóÐ À! Ð(1995)€513€U.S.€432,€434„435.)ÌñŽñÌñŽñà ` àUnfortunately€for€the€defendant,€the€òòBrechtóó€test€is€ð ðless€stringentðð€than€theÐ $à" ÐòòChapmanóó€standard.€€(òòBrecht,€supraóó,€507€U.S.€at€p.€643€(conc.€opn.€of€Stevens,€J.).)€Ð €%Ð # ÐThus,€if€at€all€possible,€defense€counsel€should€seek€to€avoid€application€of€theÏòòBrechtóó€standard.€€This€can€be€done€in€an€appropriate€case€on€one€of€four€theories.Ð `'°"% ÐññÌññà ` àFirst,€òòBrechtóó€does€not€apply€when€a€defendant€has€shown€a€ð ðstructural€error.ðð€Ð @)$' Ð(òòCalifornia€v.€Royóó€(1996)€519€U.S.€2,€5;€òòMach€v.€Stewartóó€(9th€Cir.€1997)€1237€F.3dÐ 0*€%( Ð630,€632.)€€A€ð ðstructural€errorðð€requires€per€se€reversal€since€its€effect€is€ð ðnecessarilyÏunquantifiable€.€.€.€.ðð€€(òòSullivan€v.€Louisianaóó€(1993)€508€U.S.€275,€281„282;€see€alsoÐ ,`'* ÐòòConde€v.€Henryóó€(9th€Cir.€1999)€198€F.3d€734,€740„741;€structural€error€found€whereÐ ° Ðthe€defense€was€precluded€from€presenting€its€ð ðtheory€of€the€caseðð€to€the€jury.)ÌññÌññà ` àSecond,€there€are€some€errors€(sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€òòBradyóó,€ineffectiveÐ €Ð Ðassistance€of€counsel)€where€the€nature€of€the€claim€itself€requires€a€greater€showingÏof€prejudice€than€does€the€òòBrechtóó€standard.€€(òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó€(1995)€514€U.S.€419,Ð ` ° Ð435„436€and€fn.€9;€if€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€is€made€out,€ð ðthereÏis€no€need€for€further€harmless„error€reviewðð€under€òòBrechtóó;€accord,€òòAvila€v.€GalazaóóÐ @  Ð(9th€Cir.€2002)€297€F.3d€911,€918,€fn.€7.)€€In€these€cases,€a€discussion€of€òòBrechtóó€isÐ 0 € Ðunnecessary.ÌÔ‡XŽÁXXXŽÁÔñ‘ñÌñ‘ñà ` àThird,€òòBrechtóó€leaves€open€the€possibility€that€reversal€per€se€will€be€requiredÐ P  Ðfor:€€(1)€a€ð ðdeliberate€and€especially€egregious€error;ðð€or€(2)€an€error€which€ð ðisÏcombined€with€a€pattern€of€prosecutorial€misconduct,€.€.€.€.ðð€€(òòBrecht,€supraóó,€507€U.S.Ð à0  Ðat€p.€638,€fn.€9.)€€Although€no€case€has€yet€found€reversible€error€under€this€standard,Ïit€should€certainly€be€argued€in€an€appropriate€case.€€(See€òòÔ_ÔHardnettÔ_Ô€v.€Marshallóó€(9thÐ À ÐCir.€1994)€25€F.3d€875,€879„881;€declining€to€find€ð ðFootnote€Nine€errorðð€butÏindicating€that€such€error€ð ðis€thus€assimilated€to€structural€error€and€declared€to€beÏincapable€of€redemption€by€actual€prejudice€analysis.ðð)Ìñ’ñÌñ’ñà ` àFourth,€at€least€one€federal€Court€of€Appeals€has€held€that€the€òòChapmanóóÐ pÀ Ðstandard€continues€to€apply€in€a€section€2254€proceeding€when€the€state€appellateÏcourt€did€not€engage€in€harmless€error€review.€€(òòStarr€v.€Ô_ÔLockhartÔ_Ôóó€(8th€Cir.€1994)€23Ð P  ÐF.3d€1280,€1292.)€The€basis€for€this€position€is€that€the€less€stringent€òòBrechtóó€test€wasÐ @ Ðjustified€on€the€grounds€of€respect€for€the€judgments€of€state€courts.€€(òòIbid.óó)€€Thus,Ð 0€ Ðno€deference€can€be€paid€to€a€state€court€when€a€harmless€error€analysis€was€notÏconducted€by€that€court.€€While€a€number€of€circuits€have€rejected€this€argument€(seeÏcases€cited€in€òòÔ_ÔBainsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCambraÔ_Ôóó€(9th€Cir.€2000)€204€F.3d€964,€976„977),€òòóótheÐ P Ðcontention€is€worth€raising€until€such€time€as€the€point€is€resolved€by€the€SupremeÏCourt.Ìñ“ñÌñ“ñà ` àWith€respect€to€the€application€of€the€òòBrechtóó€test,€defense€counsel€shouldÐ À! Ðfocus€on€the€important€interest€at€stake:€€"an€error€of€constitutional€dimension€„€theÏsort€that€risks€an€unreliable€trial€outcome€and€the€consequent€conviction€of€anÏinnocent€person.€€[Citation.]"€€(òòÔ_ÔO'NealÔ_Ô€v.€McAninch,€supraóó,€513€U.S.€at€p.€442.)€Ð $à" ÐThus,€"[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€habeas€court€cannot€ask€only€whether€it€thinks€the€petitioner€would€haveÏbeen€convicted€even€if€the€constitutional€error€had€not€taken€place."€€(òòBrecht€v.Ð p&À!$ ÐAbrahamson,€supraóó,€507€U.S.€619,€642,€fn.€omitted€(conc.€opn.€of€Stevens,€J.).)€Ð `'°"% ÐRather,€òòóóthe€court€must€closely€focus€on€the€critical€question€of€whether€the€errorÐ P( #& Ðimpermissibly€influenced€the€jury.€€(òòId.óó,€at€pp.€642„643.)Ð @)$' ÐÔ#†XŽÁXXXŽÁš#Ôñ”ñÌñ”ñà ` àDefense€counsel€must€compel€the€court€to€examine€the€impact€of€the€errorÏregardless€of€the€strength€of€the€governmentððs€case.€€(òòUnited€States€v.€Harrisonóó€(9thÐ ,`'* ÐCir.€1994)€34€F.3d€886,€892;€ð ð[Ô_Ôr]eviewÔ_Ô€for€harmless€error€requires€not€only€anÏevaluation€of€the€remaining€incriminating€evidence€in€the€record,€but€also€ððððthe€mostÏperceptive€reflections€as€to€the€probabilities€of€the€effect€of€error€on€a€reasonable€trierÏof€fact.ðððð€[Citation.]ðð)€€By€focusing€on€the€prejudicial€nature€of€the€error,€prosecutorsÏcan€be€made€to€pay€the€appropriate€penalty€for€violating€a€defendantððs€constitutionalÏrights.€€(For€a€thorough€resume€of€cases€dealing€with€a€showing€of€prejudice€onÏfederal€habeas,€see€2€Liebman€and€Hertz,€Federal€Habeas€Corpus€Practice€andÏProcedure,€òòsupraóó,€chapter€31,€pp.€1365„1417.)Ð @  ÐÌà ` àG.€Ô‡XŽÁXXXŽÁÔà8 ¸ àòòUnder€AEDPA,€a€Defendant€Must€Establish€CertainÐ  p  ÐConditions€Precedent€in€Order€to€Obtain€FederalÏHabeas€Relief.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐóóÌà ` àEffective€April€24,€1996,€a€new€federal€statute€(AEDPA)€set€forth€strictÏcriteria€which€a€defendant€must€satisfy€in€order€to€obtain€federal€habeas€relief.€€InÏrelevant€part,€28€U.S.C.€section€2254(d)(1)€provides:ÌÌà8 ` àà ¸ àð ð(d)€An€application€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€on€behalf€of€aÏperson€in€custody€pursuant€to€the€judgment€of€a€State€court€shall€notÏbe€granted€with€respect€to€any€claim€that€was€adjudicated€on€theÏmerits€in€State€court€proceedings€unless€the€adjudication€of€theÏclaimð!ðñ•ñÐ ` x` x Ðñ•ñÌà8 ` àà0¸ ` x` xàð ð(1)€resulted€in€a€decision€that€was€contrary€to,€or€involved€anÏunreasonable€application€of,€clearly€established€Federal€law,Ïas€determined€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€UnitedÏStates;Ô#†XŽÁXXXŽÁP.#ÔÔ‡XŽÁXXXŽÁÔ...Ô#†XŽÁXXXŽÁH2#Ô.Ô‡XŽÁXXXŽÁÔ€ððÐ`¸ x¸ x Ðñ–ñÌñ–ñà ` àAt€the€outset,€it€is€important€to€note€that€the€Ninth€Circuit€has€asserted€itsÏauthority€under€AEDPA€to€conduct€ð ðan€independent€review€of€the€recordðð€when€theÏstate€Court€of€Appeal€(or€state€Supreme€Court)€has€failed€to€address€the€defendantððsÏclaim.€€(òòBradley€v.€Duncanóó€(9th€Cir.€2002)€315€F.3d€1091,€1100.)€€While€the€courtÐ À! Ðis€precluded€from€granting€relief€unless€section€2254(d)(1)€is€satisfied,€the€NinthÏCircuit€does€not€engage€in€the€pretense€of€deferring€ð ðððto€a€state€courtððs€decision€whenÏthat€court€gives€.€.€.€nothing€to€defer€to,€.€.€.€.ðððð€(òòThomas€v.€Ô_ÔHubbardÔ_Ôóó€(9th€Cir.€2001)Ð $à" Ð273€F.3d€1164,€1170.)€à h àIn€approaching€section€2254(d)(1),€it€must€beÐ €%Ð # Ðemphasized€that€the€statute€allows€for€relief€only€when€ð ðclearly€establishedðð€SupremeÏCourt€precedent€exists.€€The€phrase€ð ðclearly€establishedðð€refers€to€the€holdings,€asÏopposed€to€the€dicta,€of€Supreme€Court€cases.€€(òòÔ_ÔLockyerÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAndradeÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€155Ð P( #& ÐL.E.2d€144,€155.)€€€ð ðIn€€other€€words,€€ððclearly€established€Federal€lawðð€ñ—ñÌñ—ñunder€ððÏ2254(d)(1)€is€the€governing€legal€principle€or€principles€set€forth€by€the€SupremeÏCourt€at€the€time€the€State€court€renders€its€decision.€[Citations.]ðð€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð  +p&) Ðñ˜ñÐ ,`'* Ðñ˜ñà ` àSection€2254(d)(1)€provides€two€alternative€tests€which€a€defendant€mayÏattempt€to€satisfy.€€As€Ô_ÔsynopsizedÔ_Ô€by€the€Ninth€Circuit,€the€standards€are€as€follows:ÌÌà8 ` àð ðA€state€courtððs€decision€can€be€ððcontrary€toðð€federal€law€either€1)€ifÏit€fails€to€apply€the€correct€controlling€authority,€or€2)€if€it€applies€theÏcontrolling€authority€to€a€case€involving€facts€ððmateriallyÏindistinguishableðð€from€those€in€a€controlling€case,€but€nonethelessÏreaches€a€different€result.€€[Citation.]€€A€state€courtððs€decision€canÏinvolve€an€ððunreasonable€applicationðð€of€federal€law€if€it€either€1)Ïcorrectly€identifies€the€governing€rule€but€then€applies€it€to€a€new€setÏof€facts€in€a€way€that€is€objectively€unreasonable,€or€2)€extends€orÏfails€to€extend€a€clearly€established€legal€principle€to€a€new€contextÏin€a€way€that€is€objectively€unreasonable.€[Citation.]€€However,€theÏCourt€recognized€that€these€categories€could€overlap,€and€that,€evenÏfor€purposes€of€precise€definition,€it€could€sometimes€be€difficult€toÏdetermine€whether€a€decision,€for€example,€unreasonably€extended€aÏrule€to€a€new€context€or€simply€contradicted€controlling€authority.€Ï[Citation.]€€Similarly,€it€seems€apparent€that€in€some€cases€it€may€beÏdifficult€to€distinguish€between,€on€the€one€hand,€a€state€courtÏdecision€that€is€contrary€to€clearly€established€federal€law€by€virtueÏof€Ô_Ôits€reaching€a€different€result€upon€materially€indistinguishableÏfacts,€and,€on€the€other,€a€particularly€unreasonable€application€ofÏclearly€established€federal€law.€€Thus,€as€we€have€said€previously,€theÏtwo€concepts€overlap€and€it€will€be€necessary€in€some€cases€to€test€aÏpetitionerððs€allegations€against€both€standards.€€[Citation.]ðð€€(òòVanÐ 0€ ÐÔ_ÔTranÔ_Ô€v.€Lindseyóó€(9th€Cir.€2000)€212€F.3d€1143,€1150,€fn.€omitted;Ð  p Ðoverruled€on€other€grounds€in€òòÔ_ÔLockyerÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAndradeÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€155€L.E.2dÐ ` Ð144,€158.)€€Ð ` x` x ÐÔ#†XŽÁXXXŽÁ‘2#ÔÌà ` àWith€regard€to€the€ð ðunreasonable€applicationðð€clause€of€section€2254(d)(1),Ïthe€Supreme€Court€has€made€it€starkly€clear€that€relief€cannot€be€granted€unless€theÏstate€courtððs€analysis€was€ð ðobjectively€unreasonable.ðð€€(òòÔ_ÔLockyerÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔAndradeÔ_Ô,€supraóó,Ð À! Ð155€L.E.2d€144,€158.)€€This€means€that€the€state€court€judgment€may€be€upheld€evenÏif€it€is€erroneous.€€(òòIbidóó.)€€However,€since€the€line€between€a€merely€erroneousÐ  #ð! Ðjudgment€and€an€objectively€unreasonable€one€is€less€than€clear,€it€is€likely€that€fairÏminded€federal€jurists€will€not€be€deterred€from€granting€relief€in€appropriate€cases.Ìñ™ñÌñ™ñà ` àIn€approaching€the€twin€tests€set€forth€in€section€2254(d)(1),€defense€counselÏshould€recognize€that€the€statute€confers€a€great€deal€of€discretion€on€federal€judges.€ÏIf€a€court€becomes€persuaded€that€a€prejudicial€constitutional€violation€has€occurred,Ïthe€statute€confers€the€necessary€power€to€grant€relief.€€For€the€moment,€federalÏjudges€have€not€been€hesitant€to€favorably€apply€section€2254(d)(1).€€A€few€examplesÏillustrate€this€reality.€Ð ,`'* ÐÔ‡XŽÁXXXŽÁÔñ›ññšñÌñšññ›ñà ` àIn€òòWilliams€v.€Taylor,€supraóó,€529€U.S.€362,€the€defendant€challenged€hisÐ ° Ðdeath€penalty€judgment€on€the€grounds€that€he€was€deprived€of€the€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€when€his€trial€lawyer€failed€to€adduce€significant€mitigatingÏevidence€at€the€penalty€phase€of€his€trial.€€The€Virginia€Supreme€Court€rejected€theÏdefendantððs€claim€on€two€grounds:€€(1)€it€held€that€U.S.€Supreme€Court€precedent€didÏnot€allow€for€reversal€based€on€a€ð ðððððmere€outcome€determinationðððððð€standard;€andÏ(2)€the€omitted€evidence€was€not€sufficiently€important€such€that€it€would€haveÏchanged€the€result€at€trial.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€371„372.)€Ð @  ÐñœñÌñœñà ` àThe€Supreme€Court€found€that€relief€was€warranted€under€section€2254(d)(1)Ïfor€two€reasons.€First,€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó€(1984)€466€U.S.€668€requiresÐ `  Ðreversal€if€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€would€have€made€a€difference.€Thus,Ïthe€Virginia€Supreme€Courtððs€analysis€was€ð ðcontrary€toðð€controlling€precedent.€Ï(òòWilliams,€supraóó,€529€U.S.€at€pp.€396„397.)€€Second,€the€state€courtððs€ð ðprejudiceÐ à0  Ðdetermination€was€unreasonable€insofar€as€it€failed€to€evaluate€the€totality€of€theÏavailable€mitigation€evidence€.€.€.€.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€397.)Ð À ÐññÌññà ` àIn€òòBradley€v.€Duncan,€supraóó,€315€F.3d€1091,€the€defendant€purchased€drugsÐ  ð Ðfor€a€man€who€begged€for€help€since€he€was€suffering€withdrawal.€As€it€turned€out,Ïthe€addict€was€working€as€a€government€agent.€€At€his€first€trial,€defendant€raised€anÏentrapment€defense€which€was€supported€by€appropriate€jury€instructions.€The€juryÏhung.€€At€the€second€trial,€the€court€refused€to€give€entrapment€instructions€and€theÏdefendant€was€convicted.€€On€this€record,€the€Ninth€Circuit€granted€relief.ÌÌà8 ` àð ð[The€California€Court€of€Appeal]€failed€to€consider€the€facts€relevantÏto€the€due€process€prejudice€prong,€including€the€undisputed€evidenceÏthat€jurors€in€the€second€trial€would€not€have€convicted€the€defendantÏif€the€entrapment€instruction€had€been€given.€€It€failed€to€explain€whyÏthe€second€judge€could€unilaterally€ignore€the€first€trial€judgeððsÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusion€of€law€regarding€the€entrapmentÏinstructions€and€not€compose€even€a€single€sentence€to€explain€awayÏthe€law€of€the€case€doctrine.€€It€is€clear€that€the€California€Court€ofÏAppealððs€failure€to€address€these€issues€constituted€an€objectivelyÏunreasonable€determination€of€both€the€law€and€the€facts.ðð€€(òòBradley,Ð  #ð! Ðsupraóó,€315€F.3d€at€p.€1100.)€Ð$à"` x` x ÐÌà ` àIn€òòDelgado€v.€Lewis,€supra,óó€223€F.3d€976,€the€defendant€entered€a€guilty€plea.€Ð p&À!$ ÐAlthough€the€defendant€obtained€a€certificate€of€probable€cause,€his€appellate€lawyerÏfiled€a€no€merit€brief€pursuant€to€òòPeople€v.óó€òòWendeóó€€(1979)€25€Cal.3d€436.€TheÐ P( #& Ðdefendant€then€brought€a€state€habeas€petition€contending€that€both€his€trial€andÏappellate€lawyers€had€failed€to€provide€him€with€effective€assistance.€€The€essenceÏof€the€defendantððs€claim€was€that€his€trial€attorney€had€failed€to€provide€òòanyóóÐ  +p&) Ðassistance€insofar€as€he€was€not€present€at€either€the€change€of€plea€or€sentencingÐ ,`'* Ðproceedings.ÌñžñÌñžñà ` àIn€its€opinion,€the€Ninth€Circuit€looked€to€òòStrickland€v.€Washington,€supra,óóÐ à Ð466€U.S.€668€as€the€ð ðclearly€established€Federal€lawðð€within€the€meaning€of€sectionÏ2254(d)(1).€€Having€done€so,€the€court€concluded€that€both€trial€and€appellate€counselÏhad€been€ineffective€since€neither€did€anything.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€980„981.)€€Having€foundÐ ` ° Ða€violation€of€ð ðclearly€established€Federal€law,ðð€the€court€held€that€the€state€courtÏresult€constituted€an€objectively€unreasonable€application€of€òòStricklandóó:Ð @  ÐÌà8 ` àð ðThe€record€before€us,€the€same€record€before€the€California€Court€ofÏAppeal€and€the€California€Supreme€Court,€reveals€a€total€failure€ofÏthe€legal€system€to€provide€even€a€modicum€of€acceptableÏrepresentation€to€Delgado€.€.€.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€stateÏcourt€unreasonably€applied€clearly€established€federal€law€underÏAEDPA.ðð€€(òòDelgado,€supraóó,€223€F.3d€at€p.€982.)ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà ` àIn€òòÔ_ÔLaJoieÔ_Ô€v.€Thompsonóó€(9th€Cir.€2000)€217€F.3d€663,€the€court€found€anotherÐ ° Ðunreasonable€application€of€settled€federal€law.€€There,€a€defendant€was€convicted€ofÏsexually€assaulting€a€child.€€At€trial,€the€defense€had€sought€to€adduce€evidence€thatÏthe€complainant€had€previously€suffered€sexual€abuse.€€This€evidence€was€offered€toÏprovide€an€alternative€source€for€the€complainantððs€knowledge€of€sexual€matters€andÏhis€injuries.€€Under€state€law,€the€defense€was€required€to€give€fifteen€days€notice€ofÏits€intent€to€use€the€evidence.€€The€trial€court€excluded€the€evidence€since€theÏdefendant€had€failed€to€give€the€requisite€notice.€ÌñŸñÌñŸñà ` àThe€Ninth€Circuit€found€that€òòMichigan€v.€Lucasóó€(1991)€500€U.S.€145€was€theÐ  p Ðcontrolling€federal€law.€€Under€òòLucasóó,€a€trial€court€may€not€employ€a€per€se€standardÐ ` Ðfor€excluding€evidence€of€prior€sex€acts€involving€a€complainant.€€Rather,€a€case€byÏcase€standard€is€constitutionally€required.€€In€finding€that€section€2254(d)(1)€wasÏsatisfied,€the€Ninth€Circuit€held€that€òòLucasóó€required€a€remedy€since€ð ðÔ_ÔLaJoieÔ_Ôððs€SixthÐ à0 ÐAmendment€rights€were€violated,€because€the€sanction€of€preclusion€of€this€evidenceÏin€this€case€was€ððarbitrary€and€disproportionateðð€to€the€purposes€of€the€15„day€noticeÏrequirement.ðð€€(òòÔ_ÔLaJoieÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€217€F.3d€at€p.€673.)Ð °"  Ðñ ñÌñ ñà ` àIn€the€course€of€its€discussion,€the€òòÔ_ÔLaJoieÔ_Ôóó€court€made€the€important€point€thatÐ $à" Ðits€own€precedents€were€ð ðððpersuasive€authority€for€purposes€of€determining€whetherÏa€particular€state€court€decision€is€an€ð ðunreasonable€applicationðð€of€Supreme€CourtÏlaw,€and€also€may€.€.€.€determine€what€law€is€ð ðclearly€established.ðððð€[Citations.]ðð€Ï(òòÔ_ÔLaJoieÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€217€F.3d€at€p.€669,€fn.€6.)€€Thus,€in€an€appropriate€case,€counselÐ P( #& Ðshould€not€hesitate€to€look€to€lower€federal€court€authority€in€determining€the€natureÏof€the€controlling€Supreme€Court€rule.Ìñ¡ñÌñ¡ñà ` àIn€òòÔ_ÔDePetrisÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔKuykendallÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€239€F.3d€1057,€the€defendant€wasÐ ,`'* Ðconvicted€of€murdering€her€husband.€€In€support€of€her€theory€of€imperfect€selfÏdefense,€the€defendant€sought€to€adduce€her€husbandððs€journal€in€which€he€depictedÏhis€prior€acts€of€violence€toward€his€first€wife€and€others.€€The€relevance€of€theÏjournal€was€to€establish€that€the€defendant€had€read€it€and€was€subjectively€terrifiedÏof€her€husband.€€Finding€that€exclusion€of€the€journal€was€Ô_ÔviolativeÔ_Ô€of€the€Fifth€andÏSixth€Amendments,€the€court€concluded€that€ð ðthe€state€courtððs€error€was€.€.€.Ïobjectively€unreasonable.€[Citation.]ðð€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€1063.)Ð P   ÐÔ#†XŽÁXXXŽÁéE#Ôñ¢ñÌñ¢ñà ` àNotwithstanding€the€foregoing€helpful€cases,€the€Supreme€Court€has€recentlyÏissued€a€disturbing€precedent.€€In€òòWoodford€v.€Ô_ÔVisciottiÔ_Ôóó€(2002)€537€U.S.€___€[154Ð  p  ÐL.E.2d€279],€the€Ninth€Circuit€granted€relief€in€a€capital€case€on€the€grounds€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€insofar€as€counsel€had€failed€to€introduce€mitigatingÏevidence€including€expert€testimony€that€the€defendant€was€reared€in€a€dysfunctionalÏfamily€in€which€he€suffered€psychological€abuse.€€The€Ninth€Circuit€had€reversed€theÏjudgment€on€the€grounds€that€the€omitted€evidence€was€significant€and€theÏaggravating€factors€were€not€overwhelming€since€the€jury€deliberated€for€a€day€andÏrequested€additional€guidance€concerning€the€jury€instructions.€€The€Supreme€CourtÏdisagreed.ÌÌà8 ` àð ððð[Ô_ÔU]nderÔ_Ô€ðð€2254(d)(1),€it€is€not€enough€to€convince€a€federal€habeasÏcourt€that,€in€its€independent€judgment,€the€state„court€decisionÏapplied€òòStricklandóó€incorrectly.ðð€[Citation.]€The€federal€habeas€schemeÐ `° Ðleaves€primary€responsibility€with€the€state€courts€for€thoseÏjudgments,€and€authorizes€federal„court€intervention€only€when€aÏstate„court€decision€is€objectively€unreasonable.€€It€is€not€that€here.€ÏWhether€or€not€we€would€reach€the€same€conclusion€as€the€CaliforniaÏSupreme€Court,€ððwe€think€at€the€very€least€that€the€state€courtððsÏcontrary€assessment€was€not€ð ðunreasonable.ðððð€[Citation.]€HabeasÏrelief€is€therefore€not€permissible€under€ðð€2254(d).ðð€€(òòWoodford,Ð ð@ Ðsupraóó,€154€L.E.2d€279,€287„288.)Ðà0` x` x ÐÌà ` àThe€disturbing€aspect€of€òòWoodfordóó€is€that€the€error€at€issue€was€fairly€similarÐ À! Ðto€that€found€in€òòWilliams€v.€Taylor,€supraóó,€529€U.S.€362€where€relief€was€granted.€Ð °"  ÐIn€both€òòWilliamsóó€and€òòWoodfordóó,€trial€counsel€erred€by€failing€to€introduce€significantÐ  #ð! Ðmitigating€evidence€in€a€capital€case.€€Presumably,€the€state€court€analysis€inÏòòWilliamsóó€was€deemed€to€be€ð ðobjectively€unreasonableðð€because€the€quantum€ofÐ €%Ð # Ðomitted€evidence€was€greater€than€that€in€òòWoodfordóó.€€While€the€two€cases€can€beÐ p&À!$ Ðdistinguished€on€their€facts,€the€reality€remains€that€application€of€the€ð ðobjectivelyÏunreasonableðð€test€will€often€turn€on€subjective€evaluations€by€federal€jurists.Ìñ£ñÌñ£ñà ` àIn€any€event,€òòWoodfordóó€does€not€represent€the€death€knell€for€federal€habeas.€Ð 0*€%( Ð(See€òòBradley€v.€Duncan,€supraóó,€315€F.3d€1091,€1100;€state€court€analysis€deemedÐ  +p&) Ðð ðobjectively€unreasonableðð€per€òòWoodfordóó.)€€Thus,€appellate€counsel€should€notÐ ,`'* Ðhesitate€to€take€a€strong€case€to€federal€court€following€an€unsuccessful€state€appeal.Ìà ` àÌà ` à1.à8 ¸ àòòAlthough€A€State€Courtððs€Factual€Findings€AreÐ à ÐPresumed€To€Be€Correct,€The€Federal€Court€Has€TheÏAuthority€To€Make€Findings€To€The€Contrary.óóÐpÀ¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àIn€the€event€that€a€state€court€has€made€a€relevant€factual€finding€concerningÏa€contested€issue,€the€federal€court€must€presume€that€the€finding€is€correct.€€InÏrelevant€part,€28€U.S.C.€section€2254(e)(1)€provides:ÌÌà8 ` àð ð[A]€determination€of€a€factual€issue€made€by€a€State€court€shall€beÏpresumed€to€be€correct.€The€applicant€shall€have€the€burden€ofÏrebutting€the€presumption€of€correctness€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence.ððÐ ` x` x ÐÌà ` àWhile€section€2254(e)(1)€imposes€a€stiff€burden€on€the€defendant,€it€is€notÏnecessarily€an€insurmountable€one.€€Rather,€a€federal€court€has€ample€authority€toÏoverrule€factual€findings€which€are€not€credible.€€Indeed,€the€Supreme€Court€hasÏrecently€emphasized€this€point.Ìñ¤ñÌñ¤ñà ` àIn€òòMiller„El€v.€Ô_ÔCockrellÔ_Ôóó€(2003)€537€U.S.€___,€[154€L.E.2d€931],€the€courtÐ pÀ Ðconsidered€a€case€where€the€state€court€had€made€a€factual€finding€that€the€prosecutorÏhad€not€improperly€exercised€peremptory€challenges€against€African„AmericanÏjurors.€€In€the€course€of€directing€the€Court€of€Appeals€to€grant€a€certificate€ofÏappealability,€the€Supreme€Court€noted:ÌÌà8 ` àð ð[Ô_ÔD]eferenceÔ_Ô€does€not€imply€abandonment€or€abdication€of€judicialÏreview.€Deference€does€not€by€definition€preclude€relief.€€A€federalÏcourt€can€disagree€with€a€state€courtððs€credibility€determination€and,Ïwhen€guided€by€AEDPA,€conclude€the€decision€was€unreasonable€orÏthat€the€factual€premise€was€incorrect€by€clear€and€convincingÏevidence.ðð€€(òòMiller€El€v.€Ô_ÔCockrellÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€154€L.E.2d€931,€952.)ÐÀ!` x` x ÐÌà ` àòòAvila€v.€Galaza,€supraóó,€297€F.3d€911€illustrates€this€point.€€In€òòAvilaóó,€theÐ  #ð! Ðdefendant€alleged€that€he€was€deprived€of€the€effective€assistance€of€trial€counselÏwhen€his€attorney€failed€to€present€numerous€witnesses€who€would€have€testified€thatÏit€was€his€brother,€rather€than€himself,€who€committed€a€shooting.€€At€a€state€habeasÏproceeding,€the€court€found€that€the€witnesses€were€not€credible.€€Going€point€byÏpoint,€the€Ninth€Circuit€found€that€the€state€courtððs€factual€findings€were€inconsistentÏwith€the€record.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€922„923,€fns.€12„14.)€€Since€the€state€courtððs€factualÐ @)$' Ðfindings€were€ð ðclearly€erroneous,ðð€relief€was€granted.€€(òòIdóó.,€at€pp.€918,€922„924.)Ð 0*€%( Ðà ` àIn€short,€there€are€some€cases€where€a€state€courtððs€factual€findings€are€quiteÏsimply€belied€by€the€record.€€In€this€circumstance,€section€2254(e)(1)€is€not€a€bar€toÐ ,`'* Ðrelief.ÌÌà ` àH.à8 ¸ àòòThe€Issuance€of€the€Order€to€Show€Causeóó.Ðภ¸  ÐÌà ` àUnlike€state€practice,€the€federal€district€court€will€always€issue€an€order€toÏshow€cause€so€long€as€the€petition€states€a€prima€facie€case.€€The€order€to€show€causeÏwill€direct€the€Attorney€General€to€file€an€answer€and€a€responsive€pleading.€€(RulesÏGoverning€Section€2254€Cases€In€the€United€States€District€Courts,€rule€4.)Ìñ¥ñÌñ¥ñà ` àIt€is€the€duty€of€the€district€court€to€ð ðpromptlyðð€issue€the€order€to€show€cause.€Ï(Rules€Governing€Section€2254€Cases€in€the€United€States€District€Courts,€rule€4.)€ÏHowever,€there€is€no€set€time€limit€within€which€the€court€must€act.€€If€the€court€hasÏnot€issued€an€order€to€show€cause€within€four€months€of€the€filing€of€the€petition,€itÏis€appropriate€to€write€a€polite€letter€to€the€court€with€a€citation€to€the€promptnessÏrequirement€of€rule€4.Ìñ¦ñÌñ¦ñà ` àIn€its€order€to€show€cause,€the€court€will€typically€provide€the€AttorneyÏGeneral€with€60€days€in€which€to€file€its€answer€and€brief.€€(Habeas€Corpus€LocalÏRules€for€the€Northern€District,€rule€2254„6(b).)€€The€defendant€is€then€given€30€daysÏin€which€to€file€a€traverse.€€(Rule€2254„6(c).)€€These€time€periods€are€subject€toÏexpansion€upon€a€request€for€an€extension€of€time.€€(Rule€2254„6(a);€Civil€LocalÏRules€for€the€Northern€District,€rules€6„1€and€6„2.)ÌÌà ` àI.à0 ¸ àòòThe€Answer€And€Responsive€Pleading.óóÐ@¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àIn€the€answer,€the€Attorney€General€must€plead€any€procedural€defenses€suchÏas€the€defendantððs€failure€to€exhaust€his€state€remedies.€€(Rules€Governing€SectionÏ2254€Cases€In€the€United€States€District€Courts,€rule€5.)€€Otherwise,€the€answer€willÏsimply€allege€that€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.Ìñ§ñÌñ§ñà ` àThe€brief€filed€by€the€Attorney€General€will€often€be€a€rehash€of€theÏrespondentððs€brief.€€If€the€Attorney€General€is€performing€in€a€competent€manner,€theÏbrief€should€include€discussion€of€the€òòBrechtóó€and€AEDPA€standards.€€(See€pp.€43„55,Ð °"  Ðòòsupraóó.)€Ð  #ð! ÐÌà ` àJ.à0 ¸ àòòThe€Traverseóó.Ѐ%Ð #¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àUnlike€state€habeas€practice,€the€traverse€in€federal€court€need€not€be€verified.€ÏIn€addition,€the€allegations€made€in€the€answer€do€not€have€to€be€specifically€denied.€ÏRather,€the€traverse€serves€the€same€function€as€a€reply€brief€on€appeal.ÌÌà ` àK.à8 ¸ àòòThe€Request€for€An€Evidentiary€Hearing€And€TheÐ  +p&) ÐHolding€Of€The€Hearing.óóÐ,`'*¸ ¸  Їà ` àThe€majority€of€federal€habeas€actions€can€be€resolved€without€an€evidentiaryÏhearing.€€In€the€usual€case,€the€issues€will€involve€pure€questions€of€law€which€do€notÏrequire€the€taking€of€evidence.€€However,€there€are€some€issues€which€necessitate€theÏtaking€of€evidence.€€€These€issues€most€often€involve€claims€of€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel.Ìñ¨ñÌñ¨ñà ` àPursuant€to€28€U.S.C.€section€2254(e)(2),€the€district€court€is€precluded€fromÏholding€an€evidentiary€hearing€if€the€defendant€ð ðfailed€to€develop€the€factual€basisÏof€a€claim€in€State€court€proceedings,€.€.€.€.ðð€€As€interpreted€by€the€Supreme€Court,Ïð ða€failure€to€develop€the€factual€basis€of€a€claim€is€not€established€unless€there€is€lackÏof€diligence,€or€some€greater€fault,€attributable€to€the€prisoner€or€the€prisonerððsÏcounsel.ðð€€(òòWilliams€v.€Tayloróó€(2000)€529€U.S.€420,€432.)€€Obviously,€this€standardÐ P  Ðwill€have€to€be€litigated€on€a€case„by„case€basis.Ìñ©ñÌñ©ñà ` àHowever,€it€is€fair€to€say€that€section€2254(e)(2)€will€not€bar€an€evidentiaryÏhearing€so€long€as€the€defendant€diligently€sought€a€hearing€in€state€court.€€The€NinthÏCircuit€has€so€held.€€(òòJones€v.€Woodóó€(9th€Cir.€1997)€114€F.3d€1002,€1013;€ð ð[Ô_Ôw]hereÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðas€here,€the€state€courts€simply€fail€to€hold€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€AEDPA€doesÏnot€preclude€a€federal€evidentiary€hearing€on€otherwise€exhausted€habeas€claims;ððÏsee€also€òòCaro€v.€Ô_ÔCalderonÔ_Ôóó€(9th€Cir.€1999)€165€F.3d€1223,€1226„1228.)Ð €Ð ÐñªñÌñªñà ` àUnder€the€Rules€for€the€Northern€District,€a€request€for€an€evidentiary€hearingÏmust€be€filed€within€15€days€of€the€filing€of€the€traverse.€€(Habeas€Corpus€LocalÏRules€for€the€Northern€District,€rule€2254„7(a).)€€The€request€must€ð ðinclude€aÏspecification€of€which€factual€issues€require€a€hearing€and€a€summary€of€whatÏevidence€the€party€proposes€to€offer.ðð€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð  p Ðñ«ñÌñ«ñà ` àThe€evidentiary€hearing€is€conducted€pursuant€to€the€standard€rules€ofÏevidence.€€In€preparation€for€the€hearing,€the€parties€may€conduct€discovery€withÏleave€of€the€court.€€(Habeas€Corpus€Local€Rules€for€the€Northern€District,€rule€2254„¼5.)€€If€necessary,€the€parties€can€resort€to€the€subpoena€power€of€the€court.Ìñ¬ñÌñ¬ñà ` àFollowing€the€evidentiary€hearing,€the€court€may€request€supplementalÏbriefing.€€(Habeas€Corpus€Local€Rules€for€the€Northern€District,€rule€2254„7(b).)€€InÏthis€circumstance,€a€reporterððs€transcript€of€the€evidentiary€hearing€will€be€madeÏavailable€for€the€use€of€the€parties.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð €%Ð # ÐÌà ` àL.à0 ¸ àòòOral€Argument.óóÐ`'°"%¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà ` àThe€district€court€is€under€no€obligation€to€conduct€oral€argument.€€A€requestÏfor€oral€argument€must€be€made€within€15€days€of€the€filing€of€the€traverse.€€(HabeasÏCorpus€Local€Rules€for€the€Northern€District€,€rule€2254„8(a).)€€The€request€ð ðshallÏinclude€a€specification€of€the€issues€to€be€addressed€at€the€argument.ðð€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð ,`'* Ðà ` àIf€the€court€holds€oral€argument,€the€length€and€nature€of€the€hearing€isÏcompletely€within€the€courtððs€discretion.€€Hearings€in€the€Northern€District€have€beenÏknown€to€last€anywhere€from€five€minutes€to€three€hours.ÌÌà ` àM.à8 ¸ àòòThe€Problem€Of€Delay€In€The€Resolution€of€the€Case.óóÐpÀ¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àRegrettably,€there€is€no€set€time€limit€within€which€the€court€must€rule€onceÏthe€case€is€fully€briefed.€€While€many€district€court€judges€act€with€dispatch,€othersÏtake€literally€years€before€issuing€an€opinion.€€In€the€case€of€undue€delay,€a€remedyÏexists.Ìñ­ñÌñ­ñà ` àUnder€Ninth€Circuit€authority,€a€habeas€petitioner€is€entitled€to€theÏð ðexpeditious€hearing€and€determinationðð€of€his€petition.€€(òòVan€Ô_ÔBuskirkÔ_Ô€v.€WilkinsonóóÐ ð@  Ð(9th€Cir.€1954)€216€F.2d€735,€737„738,€fn.€omitted.)€€In€light€of€this€principle,€theÏTenth€Circuit€has€held€that€a€14€month€delay€in€deciding€a€fully€briefed€€habeasÏaction€is€unreasonable€as€a€matter€of€law.€€(òòJohnson€v.€Rogersóó€(10th€Cir.€1990)€917Ð À ÐF.2d€1283,€1284„1285.)€€Thus,€if€this€degree€of€delay€exists,€the€Court€of€AppealsÏwill€grant€a€writ€of€mandamus€and€direct€the€district€court€to€issue€an€opinion€withinÏa€specified€period€of€time.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð à ÐÌà ` àN.à8 ¸ àòòReconsideration€In€The€District€Courtóó.ÐpÀ¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àIn€the€Northern€District,€the€court€is€required€to€issue€a€ð ðwritten€opinionðð€inÏresolving€a€section€2254€case.€€(Habeas€Corpus€Local€Rules€for€the€Northern€District,Ïrule€2254„9.)€€If€the€opinion€contains€factual€or€legal€errors,€reconsideration€can€beÏsought.Ìñ®ñÌñ®ñà ` àPursuant€to€Federal€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€rule€59(e),€the€district€court€hasÏthe€power€to€remedy€errors€of€law€or€fact€in€its€judgment.€€(òòÔ_ÔMcDowellÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCalderonÔ_ÔóóÐ ð@ Ð(9th€Cir.€1999)€197€F.3d€1253,€1255,€fn.€1.)€€A€rule€59(e)€motion€must€clearly€andÏprecisely€identify€the€errors€in€the€courtððs€opinion.€Viewed€from€this€perspective,€aÏrule€59(e)€motion€effectively€acts€as€a€petition€for€rehearing.Ìñ¯ñÌñ¯ñà ` àA€rule€59(e)€motion€must€be€filed€within€10€days€of€the€entry€of€judgment,Ïnot€the€date€the€judge€signs€the€opinion.€€(òòÔ_ÔBrowderÔ_Ô€v.€Directoróó€(1978)€434€U.S.€257,Ð $à" Ð265„266.)€€The€timely€filing€of€a€rule€59(e)€motion€tolls€the€time€for€filing€a€noticeÏof€appeal.€€(Federal€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€rule€4(a)(4)(A)(iv).)òòóóÐ p&À!$ ÐÌà ` àO.à8 ¸ àòòThe€Notice€of€Appeal€And€Application€for€AÐ P( #& ÐCertificate€of€Appealabilityóó.Ð@)$'¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àIn€order€to€take€his€case€to€the€Ninth€Circuit,€the€defendant€must:€(1)€file€aÏnotice€of€appeal€within€30€days€of€the€entry€of€judgment;€and€(2)€obtain€a€certificateÐ ,`'* Ðof€appealability.€€These€tasks€are€easily€accomplished.€€Ìñ°ñÌñ°ñà ` àInsofar€as€a€section€2254€proceeding€is€civil€in€nature,€the€defendant€has€30Ïdays€in€which€to€appeal€once€judgment€is€entered.€€(Federal€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure,€rule€4(a)(1)(A).)€€The€notice€of€appeal€is€a€pro€forma€document€whichÏneed€only€specify:€(1)€the€appealing€party;€(2)€the€judgment€appealed;€and€(3)€theÏcourt€to€which€the€appeal€is€taken.€€(Federal€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€ruleÏ3(c)(1).)€If€the€defendant€has€previously€been€granted€in€forma€pauperis€status,€thereÏis€no€fee€for€filing€the€notice€of€appeal.Ìñ±ñÌñ±ñà ` àIn€conjunction€with€the€notice€of€appeal,€the€defendant€must€also€file€a€motionÏfor€issuance€of€a€certificate€of€appealability.€Absent€a€certificate,€an€appeal€does€notÏlie.€€(28€U.S.C.€section€2253(c)(1).)€€Pursuant€to€section€2253(c)(3),€it€is€incumbentÏupon€the€district€court€to€indicate€the€ð ðspecific€issue€or€issuesðð€being€certified€forÏappeal.€€Thus,€defense€counsel€should€address€each€and€every€issue€in€the€motion.Ìñ²ñÌñ²ñà ` àIn€determining€whether€it€should€grant€the€certificate,€the€district€court€mustÏconsider€whether€the€defendant€has€made€a€ð ðsubstantial€showingðð€that€ð ðreasonableÏjurists€could€debate€whether€.€.€.€the€petition€should€have€been€resolved€in€a€differentÏmanner€.€.€.€.ðð€€(òòSlack€v.€Ô_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ôóó€(2000)€529€U.S.€473,€483„484.)€€This€standardÐ €Ð Ðdoes€not€require€a€showing€that€ð ðsome€jurists€would€grant€the€petition€for€habeasÏcorpus.ðð€€(òòMiller„El€v.€Ô_ÔCockrellÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€154€L.E.2d€931,€950„951.)€€Rather,€theÐ `° Ðrequisite€showing€is€only€that€the€issues€are€ð ðdebatable.ðð€€(òòIbidóó.)€€€In€the€NinthÐ P  ÐCircuit,€this€test€has€been€interpreted€to€mean€that€a€certificate€ð ðshould€issue€unlessÏthe€claims€are€ððutterly€without€merit.ðððð€(òòÔ_ÔLambrightÔ_Ô€v.€Stewartóó€(9th€Cir.€2000)€220Ð 0€ ÐF.3d€1022,€1025.)Ìñ³ñÌñ³ñà ` àIf€the€district€court€denies€a€certificate€in€whole€or€part,€the€remedy€is€to€fileÏa€renewed€motion€in€the€Ninth€Circuit.€€(Ninth€Circuit€Rules,€rule€22„1(c)€and€(d).)€ÏThe€motion€must€be€filed€within€35€days€of€the€district€courtððs€order€denying€theÏcertificate.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð Ð  ÐÌà ` àP.à8 ¸ àòòAppointment€of€Counsel€on€Appealóó.а" ¸ ¸  ÐÌà ` àIf€the€district€court€has€appointed€counsel€to€represent€the€defendant,€theÏNinth€Circuit€will€automatically€appoint€the€same€attorney€to€handle€the€appeal.€€IfÏthe€district€court€declined€to€appoint€counsel,€the€Ninth€Circuit€will€typically€grantÏa€motion€for€the€appointment€of€counsel€on€appeal.ÌÌà ` àQ.à8 ¸ àòòThe€Handling€of€the€Appeal.óóÐ@)$'¸ ¸  Ðà ` àÌà ` àIn€most€respects,€an€appeal€is€similar€to€a€California€state€appeal.€€Upon€theÏdocketing€of€the€appeal,€the€court€will€set€a€briefing€schedule€which€will€be€servedÐ ,`'* Ðon€counsel.Ìñ´ñÌñ´ñà ` àDefense€counsel€has€the€duty€to€perfect€the€record€on€appeal.€€If€there€was€anÏevidentiary€hearing,€counsel€must€take€the€necessary€steps€to€ensure€that€theÏreporterððs€transcript€is€transmitted€to€the€Court€of€Appeals.€€(Ninth€Circuit€Rules,€ruleÏ10„3.)€€At€the€time€that€appellantððs€opening€brief€is€filed,€defense€counsel€mustÏsubmit€an€excerpt€of€record€which€contains€the€documents€specified€in€rule€30„1€ofÏthe€Ninth€Circuit€Rules.ÌÌà@$$%ìàòòConclusionóóˆÐ  p  ÐÌà ` àIt€has€been€said€that€habeas€corpus€ð ðis€not€now€and€has€never€been€a€static,Ïnarrow,€formalistic€remedy;€its€scope€has€grown€to€achieve€its€grand€purpose€„€theÏprotection€of€individuals€against€erosion€of€their€right€to€be€free€from€wrongfulÏrestraints€upon€their€liberty.ðð€€(òòJones€v.€Ô_ÔCuninghamÔ_Ôóó€(1963)€371€U.S.€236,€243.)€€AsÐ Ð  Ðwe€advance€in€the€new€century,€there€is€no€doubt€that€the€Great€Writ€will€becomeÏever€more€necessary€to€secure€justice.€Defense€counsel€should€not€hesitate€to€applyÏfor€the€writ€whenever€it€might€conceivably€be€granted.€€In€this€way,€the€governmentÏcan€hopefully€be€made€to€restrain€its€conduct€within€the€bounds€of€the€Constitution.ÌÌà@aa%ìàòòPostscriptóóˆÐ pÀ ÐÌà ` àIn€ð ðGuns€on€the€Roof,ðð€the€late€Joe€Ô_ÔStrummerÔ_Ô€wrote:€ð ðAcross€the€humanÏfrontier,€freedom€is€always€on€the€run.ðð€€Consistent€with€Mr.€Ô_ÔStrummerÔ_Ôððs€vision,Ïfreedom€lovers€must€constantly€fight€an€often€losing€battle€against€those€who€wouldÏdebase€the€rights€of€humankind.€€This€article€is€dedicated€to€the€spirit€of€JoeÏÔ_ÔStrummerÔ_Ô€and€all€those€who€advocate€for€freedom€and€justice.Ì