Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was found guilty of murder and two counts of burglary in California state court and sentenced to death. Defendant sought habeas relief in California courts, to no avail. Defendant subsequently filed a federal habeas petition. The district court affirmed the conviction, concluding (1) Defendant’s guilt-phase challenges failed; and (2) counsel for Defendant at the penalty phase of trial had performed deficiently by failing to investigate and present certain mitigating evidence, but Defendant failed to establish that he had been prejudiced as a result. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction but reversed as to Defendant’s sentence, holding that the district court (1) did not err in concluding that counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase; but (2) erred in concluding that counsel’s deficient performance did not prejudice Defendant with respect to the penalty-phase claim. Remanded. View "Doe v. Ayers" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced for using a chemical weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 229(a), and making false statements to the FBI. Defendant’s convictions arose from his detonation of chlorine bombs, which required the evacuation of an entire neighborhood. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) prosecution pursuant to section 229 is within the federal government’s prosecutorial authority, and Defendant’s conviction is entirely distinguishable from prosecution of the purely local crime at issue in Bond v. United States; (2) the district court properly rejected Defendant’s requested jury instruction that section 229(c) requires the government to prove that Defendant’s criminal act was against property owned, leased, or used by the United States; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant; (4) the district court correctly held that statements of Defendant’s co-participant were admissible pursuant to Fe. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) as co-conspirator statements; (5) the district court did not err in rejecting Defendant’s proffered missing evidence instruction; and (6) the district court did not err in applying a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines. View "United States v. Fries" on Justia Law

Defendant, a California death row inmate, was convicted of the murders of four people. For the murders, the California courts imposed two death sentences, one in Orange County and one in Riverside County. Defendant filed habeas corpus petitions in both cases, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at various phases of each trial. The district court denied the petitions. The Ninth District affirmed, holding (1) counsel in the Orange County trial did not render deficient performance; (2) any deficient performance in the Riverside County trial did not result in prejudice to Defendant; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a stay to determine Defendant’s competency while the Orange County petition was pending. View "Medina v. Chappell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of committing and conspiring to commit wire fraud in connection with a scheme to secure mortgages by using false information in loan applications and supporting documents. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the district court’s decision to exclude, as highly prejudicial and possessing no probative value, all evidence of Defendant’s alleged abuse at the hands of her then-boyfriend (and alleged co-conspirator), and to instruct the jury to disregard this evidence in its entirety, was error; and (2) the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded. View "United States v. Haischer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who was disabled and used a wheelchair, brought suit against Bed Bath & Beyond of California (BB&B), claiming violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state law provisions for ten purported access barriers. The district court granted summary judgment for BB&B and concluded that several of Plaintiff’s claims warranted an award of attorneys’ fees to BB&B. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of BB&B, as (i) Plaintiff’s claim regarding clearance next to a restroom door in a store was without merit, as the ADA Accessibility Guidelines do not require any length of wall space on the side of the doorframe opposite the hinges; and (ii) BB&B, as a tenant, was not liable for ADA violations occurring in the parking lot outside of its store where that area was controlled by the landlord and not leased by Defendant; but (2) the district court erred in concluding that eight of Plaintiff’s ten claims were frivolous, and therefore, BB&B was not entitled to attorneys’ fees for any of Plaintiff’s claims. View "Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of Cal., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who is disabled and uses a wheelchair, brought suit against Eddie Bauer for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California state law, alleging that a store checkout counter exceeded a permissible height, a bench in the dressing room exceeded the permissible length, and blocked aisles prevented his free movement throughout the store. After a bench trial, the district court concluded that Plaintiff had not proven a violation of the ADA or California law stemming from the barriers. The district court also denied Eddie Bauer’s motion for attorney fees under the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA). The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s ruling with respect to the counters and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff was not required to present expert evidence checkout counter height, and the store’s provision of a clipboard was not an “equivalent facilitation” making the counter “accessible” under California law; (2) the dressing room bench qualified as an equivalent facilitation because Plaintiff was able to make a parallel transfer onto it from a wheelchair; (3) the blocked aisles did not constitute an ADA violation; and (4) Defendant was not entitled to attorney fees under the CDPA. View "Kohler v. Eddie Bauer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was convicted of second-degree murder and served more than twenty-six years in custody. In 2009, after a federal judge determined that falsified evidence had been introduced at trial, Plaintiff was released. The State subsequently dismissed the charges against him. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two Los Angeles Police Department detectives, alleging that Defendants fabricated reports, investigative notes, and photographs of a crime scene during their homicide investigation. The detectives also testified during preliminary proceedings and at trial. At issue in this interlocutory appeal was whether the doctrine of absolute witness immunity, which shields the detectives from liability for their testimony, also extended to the detectives' pre-trial actions. The district court rejected Defendants’ claim to absolute witness immunity for the alleged pre-trial fabrications. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s denial of summary judgment on witness immunity grounds, holding that Defendants’ investigative materials and allegedly falsified reconstruction of the crime scene fell outside the protection of absolute immunity, and further, the policy interests behind absolute immunity for testimony did not apply to the investigative materials in this case. View "Lisker v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were two Yemeni-born Muslim seamen who were United States citizens. Their civil rights action concerned a tanker ship owned by the United States Maritime Administration but operated by a private company under a contract. The first seaman alleged that the human resources director of the companying operating the ship ordered that he be fired because of his national origin. The second seaman alleged that he was not hired to work aboard the ship because of his religion and national origin. Both plaintiffs named the human resources director as a defendant but not the United States. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that because Plaintiffs’ claims both involved a contract for employment or potential employment aboard a public vessel of the United States and had a sufficient maritime connection, they were required to bring those claims against the United States. View "Ali v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a California state prisoner who was serving a forty-year “three strikes” sentence for first-degree burglary. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), arguing that her attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to present evidence of mental illness in Petitioner's Romero motion asking the sentencing court to disregard two of her strikes. The district court denied the petition. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that the applicability of Strickland v. Washington to noncapital sentencing is clearly established such that federal courts can afford relief from a state court’s flawed application of Strickland in that context, Petitioner could not prevail under the review standard imposed by the AEDPA; and (2) the state court’s findings that trial counsel’s performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and that submission of Petitioner’s medical evidence would not have resulted in a successful Romero motion and a concomitantly reduced sentence were not unreasonable applications of the Strickland standard. View "Daire v. Lattimore" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted of importing heroin and methamphetamine. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment due to the government’s destruction of potentially useful evidence - video footage of a Port of Entry pedestrian line on the morning of Defendant’s arrest - that might have supported her claim of duress. The district court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional plea of guilty. Defendant appealed, arguing that the government’s failure to preserve the video footage violated her due process right to present a complete defense. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Defendant’s due process rights were violated because (1) a Homeland Security agent, whose probable cause statement omitted any reference to Defendant’s claims of duress, knew of the apparent exculpatory value of the of the video and acted in bad faith by failing to preserve it; and (2) Defendant was unable to find comparable evidence to support her defense of duress. Remanded with directions to dismiss the indictment. View "United States v. Zaragoza-Moreira" on Justia Law