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

Schaefer, who had a long history of mental illness, ignited a homemade explosive device when officers attempted to arrest him. Charged with assault on a federal officer (18 U.S.C. 111(a)–(b)) and possession of a “destructive device,” (26 U.S.C. 5841, 5861(d), 5871) Schaefer spent 18 months with a rotating cast of counsel. Weeks before trial, he sought to proceed pro se. After holding a “Faretta” hearing, the court ruled that Schaefer unequivocally, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Schaefer changed his mind once the jury was empaneled and attempted to reinvoke his right to counsel. Finding that Schaefer was attempting to manipulate the proceedings, the court denied the request but continued the appointment of advisory counsel.The Ninth Circuit affirmed his convictions. The district court ensured that Schaefer understood the nature of the charges and the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. Although the court inaccurately identified the minimum sentence, if a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, he must have substantially understood the approximate range of his penal exposure. The district court was mindful of Schaefer’s conduct throughout and did not abuse its discretion in declining to reappoint counsel nor in denying Schaefer’s motion to compel the government to produce its trial materials. Schaefer sought those materials after learning, post-trial, that the government’s legal assistant previously worked for the state public defender’s office and had participated in a “substantive interview” with Schaefer for a state prosecution months before the explosion. The state prosecution was unrelated to obtaining the explosive materials involved in the federal case. The court rejected Schaefer’s arguments that the statutes were intended to cover only “military-type weapons” and an argument under the Speedy Trial Act. View "United States v. Schaefer" on Justia Law

In 2006, a California death row inmate sued, arguing that California’s execution protocol violated the Eighth Amendment. The district court stayed the execution. After the state promulgated a new execution protocol, the District Attorneys of three counties unsuccessfully sought to intervene. While the District Attorneys’ appeal was pending, Governor Newsom withdrew California’s execution protocol and placed a moratorium on executions. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their suit subject to conditions.The Ninth Circuit first held that this appeal was not mooted by Governor Newsom’s Order or by the stipulated dismissal. Nothing prevented Governor Newsom, or a future Governor, from withdrawing the Order and proceeding with preparations for executions. The suit could be revived upon the occurrence of any of three events specified in the Stipulation.The district court properly denied intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) because the District Attorneys had not shown a significant protectable interest in the litigation. California law does not authorize them to defend constitutional challenges to execution protocols. The litigation concerned only the method by which the state may perform executions. The District Attorneys have neither the authority to choose a method of execution nor to represent the state entity that makes that choice. The district court properly denied permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b): there was no common question of law or fact between the District Attorneys’ claim or defense and the main action; intervention would delay the already long-drawn-out litigation. View "Cooper v. Newsom" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's jury conviction for two counts of first-degree murder and his capital sentence. The panel applied the deferential standard of review in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and held that the district court properly denied petitioner's claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in not renewing a motion to change venue based on pretrial publicity and in failing to develop additional mitigating evidence. Furthermore, petitioner did not show that the California Supreme Court's denial of his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to renew the change of venue motion after jury selection was an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington.The panel granted petitioner's request to expand the certificate of appealability to include his claim that counsel acted ineffectively in not seeking a further continuance to develop additional mitigating evidence for the penalty phase. However, the panel concluded that petitioner has not shown he is entitled to relief under Strickland for counsel's investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the penalty phase or for counsel's related determination not to seek a further continuance. Furthermore, even assuming that counsel's performance was constitutionally defective, petitioner cannot show prejudice under AEDPA's deferential standard of review. View "Bolin v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment following a jury trial in an action brought by plaintiff, a California state prisoner, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a prison doctor and nurse, alleging claims of deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from defendants' termination of his prescription for morphine pills without tapering, despite the risk of withdrawal.The panel concluded that the district court's deference instruction, which instructed the jury to defer to defendants' asserted security justification, violated established law under the facts presented and was not harmless. In this case, plaintiff introduced substantial evidence that the prison did not act pursuant to a security-based policy and that the prison had several less drastic alternatives available, including Direct Observation Therapy. Accordingly, the panel remanded for a new trial. View "Coston v. Nangalama" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's first degree murder conviction and death sentence. The panel concluded that the California Supreme Court's conclusion that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar further prosecution of petitioner was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or an unreasonable determination of the facts within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2254(d).The panel also concluded that the state court's conclusion that petitioner's rights to due process and a reliable penalty determination were not violated by the admission at trial of a videotaped conditional examination of the victim's boyfriend was not an unreasonable determination of facts within the meaning of section 2254(d)(2). The panel further concluded that the state court's conclusion that petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by testimony at trial regarding certain out-of-court statements was not an unreasonable determination of the facts or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; the state court's conclusion that petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by the trial court's exclusion of his videotaped confession at the penalty phase does not warrant relief under section 2254(d); the state court's conclusion that petitioner was not denied his constitutional right to a fundamentally fair sentencing hearing was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent; the state court concluded that petitioner's rights to due process, a fair penalty trial, and a reliable sentence were not violated by the admission of evidence concerning his prior incidents of violence; the state court's rejection of petitioner's challenge to the instructions given to the jury in his case was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; the state court's rejection of petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on his attorney's concession that petitioner intentionally killed the victim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request for evidentiary development, discovery, and an evidentiary hearing. View "Jurado v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal. The panel addressed the same issue that arose in Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, 896 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2018), and held that California Penal Code 273a(a) does not qualify as a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.The panel concluded that the text of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously forecloses the BIA's interpretation of "a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment" as encompassing negligent child endangerment offenses. The panel noted that, while several of its sister circuits have deferred to the BIA's decision in Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), the panel found those decision both distinguishable and unpersuasive. The panel explained that, because section 273a(a) criminalizes conduct that falls outside the generic federal definition, it is not a categorical match for "a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment." View "Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment denying petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition seeking relief from his first degree murder conviction and death sentence. In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (2019), which summarized the factors courts should consider when evaluating a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the panel remanded so the district court can apply in the first instance the Supreme Court's guidance in Flowers. The panel resolved remaining issues in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. View "Ervin v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of a condition of supervised release that defendant may not "patronize any place" where sexually explicit "materials or entertainment are the primary material or entertainment available." The panel held that the condition barred defendant from visiting a free pornography website. The panel explained that, interpreting this language, as defendant argues, to require that an individual directly purchase goods or services from a physical location, ignores the common understanding of these terms as they are used in today's digital age, particularly in light of the oral instructions given by the district court to defendant here.In the alternative, the panel held that the record supports the conclusion that defendant searched for and viewed materials depicting sexually explicit conduct, which constituted an independent violation of the special condition at issue. The panel rejected defendant's remaining arguments in a contemporaneously filed memorandum disposition. View "United States v. Green" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when, as a condition of his supervised release and while his appeal of his conviction was pending, he was required to complete a sex offender treatment program, and then was discharged from the program and given a limited jail sanction for refusing to admit to the conduct underlying his conviction, a required part of his treatment.The panel held that it was bound by the rule adopted by six justices in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 770 (2003) (plurality opinion), as enunciated in this court's precedent, and consistent with the rule adopted by sister circuits—that the Fifth Amendment is not violated unless and until allegedly coerced statements are used against a suspect in a criminal case. The panel concluded that because plaintiff did not make a statement that was used in a criminal proceeding, he may not bring a civil action against the government under section 1983 for a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of this claim. The panel also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims alleging that the government officials involved in this incident violated plaintiff's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his First Amendment right to bring a civil lawsuit against the government. View "Chavez v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Juliano pled guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm and of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. Juliano had a 262-327-month guideline imprisonment range. The government agreed to recommend 240 months of imprisonment, then the minimum for Count 2, for a defendant who had one prior felony drug offense conviction. He was sentenced to 240 months. About 10 weeks after Juliano’s sentencing, the First Step Act reduced the mandatory minimum penalty for certain drug crimes, including those for which Juliano was convicted, from 20 to 15 years, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A).Juliano moved under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that his attorneys failed to investigate or inform him about the pending First Step Act, or to seek a continuance of his sentencing. The district court reasoned that courts “have uniformly concluded that a defense attorney is not deficient in failing to anticipate a change in the law” and that “it is doubtful the Court would have been receptive to a request to delay sentencing.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Given the general uncertainty surrounding pending legislation, counsel’s alleged failure to advise Juliano about the First Step Act or to seek a continuance fails to meet the highly deferential Strickland test for deficient performance. View "United States v. Juliano" on Justia Law