Beames v. Cullen

Filing 70

ORDER Regarding Merits Of Claim 11 In Petitioner's Federal Prison, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/22/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JOHN MICHAEL BEAMES,
Petitioner,

10
11
12
13
14

vs.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, as Acting Warden of
San Quentin State Prison,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01429 – AWI
DEATH PENALTY CASE
Order Regarding Merits of Claim 11
In Petitioner’s Federal Petition

15
16

Petitioner John Michael Beames (“Beames”) was convicted of capital murder and the torture

17

murder special circumstance for the murder of Cassie McMains, the 15-month-old daughter of

18

Beames’ live-in girlfriend, Angelita McMains. The jury also found Beames guilty of one count of

19

torture, including a finding that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. At the penalty phase of the

20

trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. Beames’ conviction and sentence were affirmed by the

21

California Supreme Court on March 22, 2007. People v. Beames, 40 Cal. 4th 907 (2007). Beames

22

filed his initial state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court on June 7, 2007, and it was

23

summarily denied July 28, 2010. See California Supreme Court Case No. S153603.

24

On July 27, 2011, Beames filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Eastern District of

25

California, challenging his conviction and death sentence. Concurrently, Beames filed a second

26

petition for habeas relief with the California Supreme Court, presenting claims which were included in

27

the federal petition but were unexhausted. The Court reviewed the petition and in light of the

28

allegations presented in Claim 11 and the possibility that resolution in Beames’ favor would result in a
1

1

grant of the writ as to his conviction, ordered merits briefing of Claim 11. Beames asserts Claim 11 in

2

his federal petition was presented to the California Supreme Court in his first state habeas petition.

3

Pursuant to court order, the Warden filed an answer consistent with Rule 5 of the Rules

4

Governing ' 2254 Cases as to Claim 11, responding to the allegations in this claim and framing the

5

issues in dispute. Subsequently, Claim 11 was found to be exhausted and the exhaustion status of the

6

remaining claims in the federal petition was resolved. See Doc. No. 56. The parties= briefing

7

addressing the merits of Claim 11 was completed March 22, 2013.

8

1) Summary of Federal Claim 11

9

Beames alleges trial counsel Rothbaum was ineffective for failing to contest the central factual

10

allegation of the prosecutor=s case: that Cassie was killed by torture from a blow to her midsection

11

which severed her liver and caused a fatal hemorrhage. Beames contends the jury never learned that a

12

competent autopsy and forensic analysis would have established a completely different cause of death

13

with very different legal implications. That is, Cassie died from malnutrition and a systemic infection,

14

not from any act of violence, and that her transected liver and broken ribs were sustained post-mortem,

15

likely as the result of Beames= attempts at resuscitation. Beames alleges the jury never heard this

16

evidence because Rothbaum failed to obtain and present it; failed to consult a forensic expert

17

regarding cause of death; failed to identify the gross defects in autopsy methodology which

18

contributed to the state=s incorrect conclusions; failed to educate himself about autopsy protocol for

19

suspected child abuse homicide cases; and failed to investigate the backgrounds of the state=s experts

20

or discover patterns of professional error and incompetence.

21

Beames contends a reasonably competent defense attorney would have consulted and retained

22

a pathology expert, who in turn would have described the sub-standard methodology of Kern County

23

pathologist Dr. Armand Dollinger, who performed Cassie=s autopsy and testified at trial about the

24

cause of her death as well as other signs of severe abuse. A reputable pediatric pathologist, such as

25

Dr. Janice Ophoven, whose professional opinion Beames presented with his initial state habeas

26

petition and which he includes with his federal petition, would have testified that contrary to Cassie

27

being tortured to death, she in fact was weakened by malnutrition and ultimately succumbed to a

28

massive, systemic infection. Beames asserts that as such, he is at most guilty of manslaughter.
2

1

Further, Beames argues the prejudice resulting from Rothbaum=s inadequate defense against the state=s

2

assertion of Cassie=s cause of death was magnified by the failure to request instructions of lesser

3

included offenses, thereby forcing the jury into an all-or-nothing decision.

4

Beames summarizes the alleged issues which contributed to Rothbaum’s ineffective assistance

5

at trial, supported by declarations from Rothbaum, his ex-wife, his paralegal and his investigator, and

6

a report from Rothbaum’s disbarment proceedings: Rothbaum used marijuana and alcohol during the

7

time of Beames’ trial; he was obsessed with gambling and taking on more cases than he could handle

8

to support his gambling addiction; he missed court appearances, did no preparation for his cases, and

9

engaged in a course of systematic professional misconduct that ultimately led to his disbarment in

10

2001; he described his practice at the time of Beames’ case as “reckless,” “out of control,”

11

“Kafkaesque,” and “near rudderless;” he was emotionally devastated, depressed and distracted during

12

the trial as his father had just died and his marriage collapsed as a result of his gambling and emotional

13

volatility; he delegated all preparation of the defense to his paralegal and investigator, but refused to

14

give them any guidance, communicate with them, or take their advice; he refused to retain experts

15

recommended by his paralegal or otherwise to prepare for trial;1 he refused to use the retainer paid to

16

him for experts or anything else; he was emotionally overwhelmed by the facts of Beames’ case and

17

did no investigation of the work done by the state’s pathologist; he believed the case was unwinnable,

18

so never questioned any aspect of the autopsy, including the cause of death or the timing of injuries;

19

he did no research regarding the methods used by the pathologist, but simply accepted the autopsy

20

report as thorough and accurate; and he was unconvinced by Beames’ account that Cassie died when a

21

tool cart fell on her and believes he conveyed this lack of enthusiasm to the jury, but adopted this

22

explanation only because he had no alternative theory of the case. See Declaration of Charles

23

Rothbaum, Fed. Ex. 22; Declaration of Melissa Watkins (Rothbaum’s ex-wife), Fed. Ex. 18;

24

Psychological Consultation Report prepared in 2004 pursuant to Disbarment Proceedings, Ex. 19;

25

Declaration of Maureen Griffin (Rothbaum’s paralegal), Fed. Ex. 21; and Declaration of Clifford

26

Webb (Rothbaum’s investigator), Fed. Ex. 26.

27
1

28

Rothbaum did employ one expert, Dr. Eugene Couture, a neuropsychologist, to evaluate
Beames mental state. See Federal Petition, Exhibits 7 (notes) and 93 (letter).
3

1

Beames notes Dr. Dollinger was subsequently disciplined by the California Medical Board for

2

misdiagnosing the cause of death for five other infants around the same time as Beames= trial. See

3

Federal Petition, Exhibit 2. Dr. Ophoven submits that in this case Dr. Dollinger failed to take critical

4

measurements, and failed to create and analyze tissue slides to accurately diagnose the manner of

5

death and the timing of injuries. Beames asserts that had Rothbaum consulted his own pediatric

6

pathology expert, the result of the trial would have been different since a reasonable doubt would have

7

been raised concerning many of the elements required for first degree torture murder, the torture

8

murder special circumstance, and the substantive crime of torture.

9

Beames also alleges Rothbaum was ineffective in regard to the prosecution=s two other experts,

10

Doctors Thomas Bennett and Boyd Stephens, who testified about injuries Cassie sustained based on a

11

review of Dr. Dollinger=s autopsy report and other medical records, and not on an examination of

12

Cassie=s body. Beames argues that had Rothbaum investigated there was readily available evidence to

13

impeach their testimony.

14

Dr. Boyd Stephens, chief medical examiner for the County of San Francisco, testified based on

15

the multiple injuries Cassie suffered over a period of time, that she had been tortured, but stated the

16

changes in the anus were consistent with decomposition and did not support sodomy or sexual entry.

17

Beames claims Rothbaum failed to present evidence to undermine Dr. Stephens’ conclusion that

18

Cassie was tortured, specifically that he failed to use the defense neuropsychologist’s notes of

19

Beames’ statement that he attempted to “warm her blood” to revive Cassie. See Federal Petition,

20

Exhibit 7.

21

Dr. Thomas Bennett, a forensic pathologist from Iowa and child abuse expert, presented the

22

only testimony that a mark on Cassie=s neck indicated she had been hung with a soft ligature for a

23

period of time. Dr. Bennett testified he was contacted about this case by the District Attorney while at

24

a seminar in San Diego. Beames argues Rothbaum failed to impeach Dr. Bennett (1) by inquiring how

25

he was recruited from Iowa; (2) by asking why the other experts failed to opine that the mark on

26

Cassie’s neck was due to strangulation; (3) regarding his past history, including news articles of

27

alleged mistakes made in mid-1980s (including the mis-identification of a skull and a missed bullet

28

during the autopsy of victim shot more than once) and in 1993 (another expert disputed his opinion
4

1

that a child was killed by shaken baby syndrome); and (4) regarding prior cases showing he was

2

biased for the prosecution (one where other experts disagreed about a child’s cause of death; another

3

alleging his opinion of time of death was based on speculation and conjecture; another discrediting his

4

testimony that levels of potassium related to poisoning could be detected post-mortem).

5

2) State Court Proceedings regarding Claim 11

6
7

a) Factual Findings on Direct Appeal
After Beames moved in with Cassie=s mother, Angelita McMains, Cassie experienced several

8

injuries, including a broken leg and various bruises. Cassie was removed from the home and during

9

the next four months living with her maternal grandparents, she suffered no additional injuries.

10

During this time, Cassie was referred to a pediatric geneticist, who diagnosed her with brittle bone

11

disease, although a pediatric orthopedist disagreed with that diagnosis.

12

Cassie was released back to her mother December 7, 1993, after which family members

13

observed on separate occasions that she had a burn on her finger and black eyes, that she was afraid of

14

Beames, and that Beames squirted liquid into her eyes and roughly shook her when she cried. The

15

date when Cassie was last seen alive was not established at trial, but Beames= sister said Beames told

16

her on the afternoon of January 19, 1994, that Cassie had died the previous night. Beames consistently

17

asserted -- to his sister, in a tape recording that he made, and during his testimony at trial -- that

18

Cassie=s death was accidental. Beames stated Cassie had vomited during the night, that he had taken

19

her out of bed and placed her on the floor in order to change the sheets, and that he returned to find a

20

cart with tools on it had fallen over on her, a Apool of blood@ around her, and that she had no pulse.

21

Beames’ sister asked about taking Cassie to the hospital, or calling law enforcement, but Beames

22

refused, saying to give him a little bit of time. Beames told a sheriff’s officer, who found him early

23

the next morning at a friend’s house, that Cassie’s body was inside his car.

24

Dr. Dollinger performed the autopsy and determined the cause of death was massive

25

hemorrhage due to a transected liver. The autopsy revealed that Cassie had not eaten for 24 hours

26

before her death; that she sustained multiple bruises and abrasions on her face, mouth, back of the

27

head, right front scalp, back, neck, left shoulder, right thumb, and knee; that she had five broken ribs

28

on the right side and four broken ribs on the left; that she had dilation of the anal canal and scarring of
5

1

the surrounding muscle; that there was a large laceration of the top left side of her head, and that there

2

were various burns to her buttocks, hands and fingers, and feet and toes.

3
4

b) Allegations Presented in State Habeas Petition
Dr. Janice Ophoven, a pediatric forensic pathologist with over 30 years of experience,

5

reviewed the autopsy and expert reports, tissue slides, autopsy photographs, selected expert and lay

6

testimony, and a variety of other documents from Beames= case, and presented a declaration in support

7

of Beames= state habeas petition. See Federal Petition, Exhibit 6. Dr. Ophoven rendered the following

8

opinions:
Many of the injuries Dr. Dollinger described as pre-mortem were actually inflicted after

9
10

Cassie=s death, including most critically, the wound to her liver which Dr. Dollinger identified

11

as the cause of her death. Cassie=s liver showed a deep transection, but the absence of

12

microscopic hemorrhage or necrosis in the liver sections and the shock pattern in the liver

13

which indicates a post-mortem injury. The fluid in the area near Cassie=s liver was

14

decomposition fluid, not blood as Dr. Dollinger testified.
At the time of her death, Cassie had numerous superficial wounds, and there is no

15
16

doubt that she was handled roughly during her lifetime. Cassie was severely undernourished,

17

as evidenced by focal pneumonia with aspirated debris, profound distension of her abdomen,

18

an empty gastrointestinal tract, and severe body wasting. Cassie=s brother Darrian was

19

admitted to the hospital around the time of Cassie=s death with complications of severe

20

malnutrition. Both children showed classic signs of abuse and neglect from exposure to

21

household chronic methamphetamine use.

22

Rigor mortis appears to have relented at the time of the autopsy, which along with the

23

gas formation, indicated decomposition and that Cassie was likely to have been dead for days

24

prior to the autopsy. Cassie was reported missing the evening of January 19, 1994, and her

25

body was found early in the morning on January 20.2 The discolorations and apparent

26

superficial abrasions to Cassie=s mouth and nose were created post-mortem, as indicated by

27
28

2

The autopsy was performed January 20, 1994, at 6:10 pm. Federal Petition, Exhibit 3.
6

1

their relatively homogenous color, and suggest post-mortem insect activity, indicating death

2

possibly occurred days before the autopsy. Tissue samples were not taken of these injuries.

3

Some of the grid marks/contact burns on Cassie=s body were glassy and thus had the

4

appearance of post-mortem burns. Tissue samples from the burns would have helped to

5

definitively date them, but no such samples were taken. Further, the injuries to the tips of

6

Cassie=s fingers and toes were not burns, but instead appeared to be the result of decomposition

7

and/or mummification.

8

A section of a rib fracture showed new bone formation, callus formation, and periosteal

9

granulation tissue, all indicating an older, healing injury. Due to the very poor quality of the

10

films taken of the rib fractures, a competent pediatric forensic pathologist could say no more

11

than that the injury may have been weeks old. It is not possible to determine how many rib

12

fractures Cassie suffered because of the poor documentation, but some of the rib fractures

13

occurred near the time of death.

14

There was a large ulcer on Cassie=s scalp, which was not a cut, but could possibly have

15

been an infected bedsore, or an accumulation of blood that resulted in pressure which hindered

16

the flow of blood to the area, and created a gangrenous condition. Microscopic sections of this

17

tissue showed full thickness ulcerations with diffuse scarring and granulation tissue, indicating

18

that this had been present for a significant time period, perhaps weeks.

19

Cassie had extensive pus in her bloodstream, consistent with a massive, fatal body

20

infection, or terminal septicemia. Given her malnutrition, Cassie was more susceptible to such

21

a massive infection. The source of the infection could likely have been the large, gangrenous

22

ulcer on her scalp, but no post mortem analysis for infection was performed.

23

At Cassie=s autopsy there was evidence of fresh rib fractures and a large liver

24

laceration. The injuries could have resulted from post-mortem compression to the torso if

25

Beames had performed prolonged CPR, especially if he was untrained and frantic. The

26

evaluation of these injuries was consistent with the liver injury occurring after death.

27
28

Cassie died at age fifteen months with evidence of severe malnutrition and probable
dehydration. Cassie had evidence of an empty GI tract, severe body wasting, and pneumonia.
7

1

The evidence of diffuse pneumonia suggests Cassie died from infectious complications of

2

chronic malnutrition.

3

Cassie=s weight, at 17 pounds, was well below normal and less than five percent of the

4

population for her age, and her height, at about 2.5 feet, was between twenty-five to fifty

5

percent of the normal height for her age. Despite being 15 months old, Cassie was closer in

6

size to an average nine-month-old. At the time of Cassie=s death, her younger brother, Darrian,

7

had been admitted to the hospital with complications due to severe malnutrition. The cause of

8

Cassie=s death was consistent with fatal neglect. Cassie did not bleed to death from a

9

transected liver; she was starved and weakened, succumbing to a massive, fatal infection.

10

There was no evidence Cassie was tortured. The medical evidence does not support a

11

finding that Cassie was hung by a ligature, nor that she received a blow to her liver while she

12

was alive. Many of Cassie=s other injuries, such as the abrasions to her mouth and at least

13

some of her burns, did not constitute torture because they appeared to have been sustained

14

post-mortem. Some injuries likely existed for weeks before January 19 and were more

15

consistent with neglect, such as the gangrenous ulcer on Cassie=s scalp. Malnutrition and

16

dehydration was not adequately considered in the analysis of Cassie=s cause of death and

17

standard studies used to evaluate this condition were not performed. Dr. Dollinger=s extensive

18

failures to follow established autopsy protocols undermined his opinions. Further, autopsy

19

protocols call for standard tests to help determine the time and cause of death, which were not

20

performed. Cassie=s malnutrition made her susceptible to a fatal infection, which was the

21

actual cause of her death.

22

Dr. Ophoven=s opinions in this matter were based on medical information and forensic

23

techniques which existed at the time of Cassie=s autopsy in 1994. Had Dr. Ophoven been called as a

24

witness at Beames= trial, she would have testified consistent with her declaration.

25

3) Standard of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)

26

Federal habeas relief may only be granted for a claim that has been adjudicated on the merits in

27

state court if the petitioner shows the state court=s decision was Acontrary to@ or Ainvolved an

28

unreasonable application of@ clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or was based on an
8

1

Aunreasonable determination of the facts.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2); Harrington v. Richter,

2

562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 770, 785 (2011).
Under (d)(1), a state court decision is Acontrary to@ federal law if it failed to apply the correct

3
4

controlling Supreme Court authority or came to a different conclusion when presented with materially

5

indistinguishable facts. It is an Aunreasonable application@ of Supreme Court law if the correct legal

6

standard was identified but it was applied to the facts in an objectively unreasonable manner. Bell v.

7

Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). A petitioner=s challenge under (d)(2) requires the federal court to

8

determine that a state court=s factual finding was not merely wrong, but was objectively unreasonable

9

in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 999

10

(9th Cir. 2004); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340

11

(2003).

12

A petitioner bears the burden of showing the state court decision meets the requirements of

13

(d)(1) and (d)(2) on the basis of the record that was before the state court. 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(d)(2);

14

Miller-El, supra; Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011). The standard of

15

' 2254(d) is difficult to meet and highly deferential, as it demands that state court decisions be given

16

the benefit of the doubt. Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 786; Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24-25 (2002)

17

(per curiam). The question for a federal court is not whether it believes the state court determination

18

was incorrect, but whether it was unreasonable B which is a substantially higher threshold. Schriro v.

19

Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007).

20

Making the Acontrary to@ or Aunreasonable application@ determination is impeded where the

21

state court gives no reasoned explanation for its decision. In that case, a federal habeas court must

22

determine what arguments or theories supported, or could have supported, the state court=s decision,

23

and then ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories

24

are inconsistent with the holdings of the United States Supreme Court. Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 786.

25

A[E]ven a strong case for relief does not mean the state court=s contrary conclusion was unreasonable.@

26

Id., (citing Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75). The petitioner must show the state court=s ruling was so lacking

27

in justification the error was Awell understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any

28

possibility for fairminded disagreement.@ Id., at 786-87.
9

1
2

4) Application of § 2254(d)
a) The Parties’ Arguments

3

i) Beames’ Brief

4

Relying on Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2003), Beames contends that when a

5

state court denies a claim for failing to state a prima facie case, the absence of a prima facie case is the

6

determination that must reviewed for reasonableness under ' 2254(d). Beames points out that where

7

the California Supreme Court summarily denies habeas relief, the only Amerits@ determination that has

8

been made is that the petitioner has failed to allege facts, which if true, would entitle him to relief. In

9

re Clark, 5 Cal. 4th 750, 770 (1993); Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1402 n.12.

10

Beames observes that under Pinholster, this Court must look at what the state court did in light

11

of what the state court knew. Id., 131 S. Ct. at 1399. Beames argues that under (d)(1), no deference is

12

due to a state court’s unreasonable decision that a habeas claim fails to state a prima facie case for

13

violation of a federal constitutional right. Nunes, supra, 350 F.3d 1045; accord, Rivera v.

14

Quarterman, 505 F.3d 349, 357 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Faced only with the threshold question of whether to

15

allow Rivera's claim to proceed, it was unreasonable on the record before the [state court] to reject

16

Rivera's Atkins claim as failing to even establish a prima facie case”).

17

Beames asserts state courts are required to review federal claims in accordance with federal

18

law, and this includes the recognition that the existence of a prima facie case for violation of federal

19

rights is a federal question. Carter v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442, 447 (1900) (holding the determination of

20

“whether a right or privilege, claimed under the Constitution or laws of the United States was

21

distinctly and sufficiently pleaded and brought to the notice of the state court, is itself a federal

22

question”); Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 948 (2007) (finding an unreasonable application of

23

federal law when state process for resolving claim was unreasonable); (Terry) Williams v. Taylor, 529

24

U.S. 362, 397 (2000) (finding an unreasonable application of federal law when state court imposed

25

heightened standard for the constitutional violation at issue).

26

Beames argues that in the context of § 2254(d), “the critical question in determining prejudice

27

[is] whether a fair-minded jurist could fail to acknowledge at least a reasonable probability of a

28

different outcome.” Cannedy v. Adams, 706 F.3d 1148, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013). Beames asserts when a
10

1

reviewing court is faced with a conflict in testimony between two witnesses, either of whom could be

2

believed or disbelieved, a reasonable probability of a different outcome must be acknowledged.

3

“Strickland asks whether it is reasonably likely the result would have been different. This does not

4

require a showing that counsel's actions more likely than not altered the outcome. . . .” Richter, 131

5

S.Ct. at 792 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In a ‘he said, she said’ case . . . it would

6

have been objectively unreasonable not to acknowledge the possibility that both outcomes had a

7

reasonable probability of occurring.” Cannedy, supra, 706 F.3d at 1165.

8

California law precludes a state court from making an adverse credibility determination

9

without an evidentiary hearing. In re Serrano, 10 Cal. 4th 447, 456 (1995). The federal standard is

10

the same. Earp v. Cullen, 623 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2010). Beames argues that if the California

11

Supreme Court discounted Dr. Ophoven’s declaration as not credible, it violated this principle and it

12

also made an unreasonable factual determination within the meaning of the AEDPA. Evidentiary

13

findings made by a state court without holding a hearing and giving petitioner an opportunity to

14

present evidence, result in a “unreasonable determination of the facts” within the meaning of §

15

2254(d)(2). Taylor, supra, 366 F.3d at 1001.

16

Beames contends the California Supreme Court unreasonably failed to apply its own

17

previously announced binding standards by summarily denying his claim. Beames concludes that

18

deference to the state court decision is not warranted since the California Supreme Court unreasonably

19

denied him the opportunity to prove the allegations in Claim 11, despite the fact that his state petition

20

and exhibits amply met both federal and state law standards for stating a prima facie case.

21

ii) The Warden’s Response

22

The Warden asserts the question under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(d) is not whether the merits denial of

23

this claim by the California Supreme Court was correct, but whether it was unreasonable in light of

24

clearly established United States Supreme Court law. The Warden disagrees with Beames that in the

25

case of a state summary denial the reviewing court looks to whether the determination of no prima

26

facie case was reasonable, and asserts Beames’ view is not supported by the language in ' 2254 or by

27

United States Supreme Court precedent. The Warden contends in the case of a summary denial, as in

28

the instant case, it is impossible for a federal court to determine the precise method of analysis
11

1

employed by a state court, or to determine whether the method was reasonable or not. Instead, the

2

Warden contends a federal court must ask what arguments or theories supported, or could have

3

supported, the state court=s decision and then ask whether it is possible fair-minded jurists could

4

disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior Supreme Court

5

decision. Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 786; Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1402.

6

The Warden argues the various United States Supreme Court cases Beames relies on, which

7

independently reviewed a state court=s summary denial of a federal constitutional claim, all pre-date

8

the AEDPA. The Warden asserts Beames= contention, that a federal court must review the state

9

court=s decision-making process to see if its prima facie case determination was reasonable, is

10

fundamentally at odds with the type of analysis required by the AEDPA as conducted in Richter, 131

11

S. Ct. at 786, and Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1402.

12

The Warden also argues Beames= view is at odds with the United States Supreme Court=s

13

decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863 (2011), where federal habeas relief

14

was precluded under the AEDPA. In that case, two inmates, Cooke and Clay, sought federal habeas

15

relief after their state habeas petitions challenging the denial of their respective parole requests were

16

rejected. The Ninth Circuit granted both inmates relief. Regarding Cooke, the Ninth Circuit held that

17

California=s parole statute created a constitutionally-protected liberty interest, and that California=s

18

Asome evidence@ requirement was a component of that liberty interest. Id., at 860. The Ninth Circuit

19

concluded the state court had made an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence.

20

Id., at 860-861. In Clay=s case, the Ninth Circuit concluded the Governor=s decision to deny parole

21

was an unreasonable application of California=s some evidence rule and was an unreasonable

22

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. Id., at 861. The United Supreme Court

23

reversed both decisions, determining, among other things, that California=s misapplication of its own

24

parole standard was not a justification for granting federal habeas relief. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. at 861-63.

25

In so concluding, the Court held that whether California=s Asome evidence@ rule of judicial review was

26

correctly applied is not a federal concern. Id., at 863. Likewise, the Warden argues in this case it is of

27

no federal concern whether California=s prima facie standard for state habeas proceedings was

28
12

1

correctly applied, but only whether the state court=s ultimate merits rejection was unreasonable in light

2

of clearly established United States Supreme Court law.

3

The Warden contends the state court=s summary denial of this claim without a hearing was not

4

an unreasonable factual finding under ' 2254(d)(2). The Warden asserts the state court could have

5

reasonably rejected Beames= ineffectiveness claim even after accepting Dr. Ophoven=s declaration at

6

face value, as an evidentiary hearing is not required where, as here, the record on appeal contradicts

7

Beames= factual allegations. The Warden concludes, irrespective of a state court=s interpretation and

8

application of its own prima facie state habeas standard, a claim denied on the merits by a state court

9

must be denied federal habeas relief unless the state court adjudication was Acontrary to@ or an

10

Aunreasonable application@ of clearly established Supreme Court law, or an Aunreasonable

11

determination of the facts@ in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

12

iii) Beames’ Reply

13

Beames acknowledges that it was the dissent in Pinholster which noted that under § 2254(d),

14

the question arising from a summary denial of a habeas claim under California law is whether the state

15

court reasonably found the lack of a prima face case. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1426 (Sotomayor, J.,

16

dissenting). But Beames contends the Pinholster majority did not disagree, but instead summarized

17

the California standards, id., at 1402, n.12, and stated that under § 2254(d), the federal courts must

18

look at what the state court did in light of what the state court knew. Id., at 1399. Beames rejects the

19

Warden’s contention that evaluating the reasonableness of the state court’s application of its own

20

standards in adjudicating Beames’ federal habeas claims would violate Estelle v. McGuire, supra, 502

21

U.S. 62 and Bradshaw v. Richey, supra, 546 U.S. 74. In McGuire, the Supreme Court found that the

22

admission of evidence in violation of state law could not provide a substantive ground for federal

23

habeas relief because “a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the

24

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 502 U.S. at 67-68. Beames argues that in contrast

25

to Estelle, he is not seeking relief for violations of state law, but asserting that under § 2254(d),

26

California cannot claim deference for an unreasonable adjudication of his federal rights. Beames

27

assets a portion of the analysis under § 2254(d) of the state court’s reasonableness includes whether

28

the state court provided an opportunity to develop and present evidence in support of federal claims.
13

1

Beames argues the Warden has failed to rebut his prima facie showing that Rothbaum rendered

2

deficient performance which prejudiced his case. Beames contends that if Rothbaum had undertaken

3

the basic work of investigating the prosecution’s forensic case, he would have discovered the

4

prosecution expert testimony was grossly flawed, in that Cassie died from neglect not torture, and in

5

that the injuries Dr. Dollinger insisted were the cause of death were caused post-mortem. This

6

information would have provided Beames with a viable defense, in place of an implausible, belated

7

and self-serving story of the fallen tool cart that Rothbaum himself found unconvincing and did not

8

otherwise support. Rothbaum’s total failure to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful

9

adversarial testing satisfies the first prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984),

10

establishing deficient performance. Beames alleges there is a reasonable probability that, had

11

Rothbaum investigated and presented available evidence impeaching the prosecution’s experts, there

12

would have been a more favorable outcome. Beames contends the state court’s denial of this claim for

13

failure to satisfy the pleading requirements for deficient performance is unreasonable under § 2254(d).

14
15

b) Analysis of 2254(d) Review
The California Supreme Court, in issuing a summary denial, is assumed to have applied the

16

correct law. Visciotti, supra, 537 U.S. at 24 (holding that state courts know and follow the law).

17

Therefore, the state court’s summary denial of Claim 11 is not “contrary to” clearly established United

18

States Supreme Court law, as it is assumed to have applied the correct Supreme Court precedent.

19

Nonetheless, a summary denial may involve an “unreasonable application” of clearly established

20

Supreme Court law, that is, the correct legal standard was identified but was applied to the facts in an

21

objectively unreasonable manner, or it may involve an “unreasonable determination of the facts,”

22

where the state court’s factual finding was objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented

23

in the state court proceeding.

24

California’s initial standard for pleading adequate grounds for habeas relief is satisfied where

25

the habeas corpus petition (1) alleges an illegal imprisonment, (2) states fully and with particularity the

26

facts on which relief is sought, and (3) includes copies of reasonably available documentary evidence

27

supporting the claim, such as transcripts, affidavits or declarations. People v. Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th 464,

28

474 (1995). Under this authority, the state reviewing court presumes the regularity of the trial
14

1

proceedings which resulted in a final judgment, the burden is on the petitioner to establish grounds for

2

his release, and conclusory allegations without any explanation of the basis for the allegations do not

3

warrant relief, let alone provide justification for an evidentiary hearing. Id.

4

The state court evaluates a petition for habeas corpus by assuming the factual allegations are

5

true and asking whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief. Duvall, supra, 9 Cal. 4th at 474-475.

6

If the petition does not state a prima facie case for relief, it is summarily denied. Id., at 475. If,

7

however, the court finds the factual allegations, taken as true, establish a prima facie case for relief,

8

the court will issue an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why relief should not be granted. Id.

9

Both parties misapprehend the import of Nunes, supra, 350 F.3d 1045, to this case. Beames

10

asserts the analysis of California’s prima facie standard by the Ninth Circuit in Nunes should equally

11

apply to his case, but Nunes is readily distinguishable from Beames' case. In Nunes, the state court

12

made explicit factual findings and credibility determinations there, while in Beames' case his state

13

habeas petition was denied without explanation. This Court also cannot accept the Warden’s view of

14

how to evaluate the state court’s denial of a prima facie case. Under his reasoning, there would be no

15

end to the speculation federal courts would undertake to uphold unsupported and even contradictory

16

state summary denials. Moreover, the Supreme Court has clearly set forth the standard to be applied,

17

directing that A§ 2254(d) applies even where there has been a summary denial.@ Pinholster, 131 S. Ct.

18

at 1402, citing Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 786. Accordingly, this Court will accord AEDPA deference to

19

the state court's decision rejecting Beames' claims on the merits.

20

In evaluating Beames= claims, this Court examines whether the California Supreme Court=s

21

decision to deny his claims without the issuance of an OSC or further factual development constituted

22

an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or an unreasonable

23

determination of the facts. This Court agrees with Beames that the determination of reasonableness

24

under § 2254(d) necessarily requires the federal court to look at the decision the state actually made.

25

In this case, that decision was denying an OSC. Because this Court is aware of the decision made by

26

the California Supreme Court and what information was before the state court, that will be the starting

27

point for this Court’s analysis.

28
15

1

Beames’ trial counsel had an obligation to undertake a Athorough investigation of the law and

2

facts relevant to plausible options@ for a defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. The allegations of

3

Beames’ state habeas petition, accepted as true, are sufficient to establish that Rothbaum provided

4

deficient performance in failing to investigate any possible defense. Although there was some

5

evidence presented which corroborated or was consistent with Beames’ testimony, his account of the

6

fallen tool cart was implausible at best and in light of his prior record, it was unlikely the jury would

7

believe him. Accepting Dr. Ophoven’s definitive assertion that Cassie’s death was caused by neglect

8

and not by torture as true, the California Supreme Court’s summary rejection of this claim compels the

9

conclusion that it found Dr. Ophoven’s opinion irrelevant. This conclusion is objectively

10

unreasonable. In light of the questionable defense Rothbaum offered when a much stronger defense

11

was available, the California Supreme Court=s conclusion that Beames did not state a prima facie case

12

of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be reasonable. Since the state court=s summary denial of

13

this claim was objectively unreasonable, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) poses no barrier to relief. It is not

14

possible fairminded jurists would agree that Rothbaum’s representation – the presentation of Beames’

15

account that Cassie was killed by a falling tool cart, in the face of the prosecution’s evidence asserting

16

she was killed by a massive blow which tore her liver it in two and caused her to internally bled to

17

death, instead of presenting expert testimony that Cassie was neglected to the point of malnutrition and

18

succumbed to a systemic infection – was consistent with the minimum requirements of Strickland.

19

Richter, supra, 131 S. Ct. at 786.

20

Merits Review

21

c) The Parties’ Arguments

22

i) Beames’ Brief

23

Citing Duvall, supra, 9 Cal. 4th at 474, and People v. Romero, 8 Cal. 4th 728, 737 (1994),

24

Beames asserts the state court=s summary rejection of this claim constitutes a holding that, even

25

assuming all of his allegations are true and crediting all the statements of his declarants, Rothbaum=s

26

failure to investigate and challenge the accuracy and reliability of the state=s forensic evidence was

27

within the range of reasonable performance. Beames argues that such a holding cannot reasonably be

28

squared with Strickland. Beames asserts that any presumption of a strategic basis for Rothbaum=s
16

1

failure to contest the cause of death in this case is overcome by the specific allegations that Rothbaum

2

made no investigations and conducted no research on which such a strategic decision could be based.

3

Id., 466 U.S. at 690-91 (entitlement to deference requires reasonable investigations and research as the

4

basis for a strategic decision). Beames observes Rothbaum=s own declaration admits he was distracted

5

by personal problems and overwhelmed by the facts of the case, and did not even consider whether Dr.

6

Dollinger=s autopsy and opinion might be vulnerable to challenge. Beames asserts Rothbaum’s

7

admissions, along with, along with the declarations of several percipient witnesses to Rothbaum=s

8

handling of the case and his impaired functioning at the time of Beames’ trial, supports the allegations

9

of ineffective assistance of counsel. Beames contends these declarations, which the state court was

10

required to accept as true, overcome any presumption that Rothbaum=s decision making was strategic

11

and based on reasonable investigation.

12

Beames asserts it was absolutely necessary for Rothbaum to consult his own expert concerning

13

the technical, complex pediatric forensic pathology issues in the case because such issues were the

14

crux of the guilt phase, and without the state's experts' testimony, there was only a slight case against

15

him. Beames observes Rothbaum conceded as much at trial when he argued to the jury that "much of

16

what [the prosecutor] Mr. Gallian is basing his case on is expert evidence . . ." Vol. 12, RT:1325.

17

Beames alleges Rothbaum did nothing to evaluate the strength of the state's case, did nothing to

18

prepare for cross-examination, and did nothing to present an affirmative defense. Beames argues had

19

a competent expert testified that Cassie died from neglect and since the state's experts' methodology

20

was incompetent, their conclusions were suspect, and had Rothbaum properly cross-examined the

21

state's experts, there was a reasonable possibility the result would have been different since a

22

reasonable doubt could have been raised concerning many elements of first degree torture murder

23

charge and the torture murder special circumstance. Beames contends that besides the state’s experts,

24

there was little or no evidence to establish any of the elements of the case, but without a defense expert

25

to offer an alternate explanation or to assist Rothbaum in cross-examination, the jury was almost

26

certain to believe the state's experts.

27
28

Beames asserts Rothbaum knew or should have known that Beames had told witnesses and
police that he performed CPR Afor hours@ on Cassie, and that Beames was under the influence of
17

1

methamphetamine at the time. Trial testimonies of Tammy Beames, Vol. 8, RT:819; Ricky Hager,

2

Vol. 7, RT:637-638; Crystal Williams, Vol. 7, RT:692; and Dr. Eleanor Zorn, Vol. 11, RT:1087-1094.

3

Beames contends methamphetamine=s agitating physical effects and mania-inducing mental effects are

4

well known to criminal defense attorneys. Rothbaum also knew or should have known that Beames

5

reported placing Cassie=s body on or near the heating grate as that information was in Dr. Couture’s

6

interview notes. Federal Petition, Exhibit 7. Had Rothbaum consulted an expert or a medical text on

7

protocols for suspected child abuse autopsies, he would have known that potential postmortem injuries

8

related to resuscitation attempts should be considered and ruled out, especially in the case of injuries

9

to the ribs and/or liver. Even without research into autopsy protocols or knowledge of

10

methamphetamine=s effects, common sense suggests that chest compressions might have something to

11

do with broken ribs and internal organ damage, especially when those compressions may have been

12

performed for an extended period of time.

13

Beames asserts that even though the core of the prosecution=s case was the testimonies of

14

experts, Rothbaum did nothing to evaluate the strength of the state=s case, to prepare for cross-

15

examination of the state=s experts, or to present a defense. Dr. Ophoven opines the evidence supports

16

a finding that Cassie was severely malnourished and thus vulnerable to massive infection, that she had

17

already been dead for some time when autopsied as her body was already beginning to decompose,

18

and that she lacked hemorrhage in the adjacent tissue to her deeply transected liver, all of which is

19

inconsistent with Dr. Dollinger=s conclusion as to cause of death. Dr. Dollinger misinterpreted the

20

slides he did make of the liver and head injuries, as the slide of the liver clearly indicates a post-

21

mortem wound and the slide of the head injury clearly indicates a wound much older than Dr.

22

Dollinger concluded. Dr. Ophoven opines a competent pediatric forensic pathologist would have

23

testified the medical evidence does not support that Cassie received a blow to the liver while she was

24

alive, but that the state of Cassie=s liver and surrounding tissues, together with her broken ribs, are

25

consistent with post-mortem compression of the torso, specifically with prolonged, untrained and

26

frantic CPR.

27

Dr. Ophoven opines that most of Cassie=s other injuries were sustained post-mortem, either

28

from decomposition, mummification, or insect activity, and that Dr. Dollinger failed to take tissue
18

1

samples to support his contrary opinion about the cause of these injuries. Dr. Ophoven also contends

2

Dr. Dollinger totally mischaracterized the nature and timing of the injury to Cassie=s scalp, calling it a

3

laceration, when it was in fact a large, gangrenous ulcer that had been present for a significant period

4

of time, which could have been the source of pus in her blood vessels and of the pneumonia. Dr.

5

Ophoven asserts an experienced forensic pathology expert would have testified the evidence did not

6

support the conclusion Cassie was hung by a ligature, as well as revealed Dr. Dollinger=s sub-standard

7

autopsy methodology, which included the failure to perform standard studies to evaluate malnutrition

8

and dehydration, and the failure to take tissue and bodily fluid samples which could have supported

9

the determination of the age of injuries and the time of death.

10

Beames argues that the indisputable centrality of the autopsy and opinion of the cause of death

11

distinguish his Strickland claim from the claim rejected in Richter, supra, 131 S. Ct. 770. The

12

dispositive evidentiary issue in Richter was a credibility contest between the defendant and the

13

surviving victim about the circumstances of the exchange of gunfire in which a second victim was

14

killed. Joshua Richter alleged that his lawyer performed deficiently by failing to retain an expert to

15

test whether a pool of blood at the crime scene was consistent with the his version of events. The

16

prosecution did not conduct its own testing of the blood prior to trial. The Supreme Court held the

17

state court=s rejection of the claim was not unreasonable, because A[i]t was at least arguable that a

18

reasonable attorney could decide to forgo inquiry@ into the forensic evidence at issue. Richter, 131

19

S. Ct. at 788. That was so because (1) the blood was a side issue, Adistractive from more important

20

duties,@ and (2) the results of blood testing might just have easily damaged the defense case. Richter,

21

131 S. Ct. at 789-90 (internal quotation omitted). The Supreme Court noted Athe possibility that

22

[defense] expert testimony could shift attention to esoteric matters of forensic science, distract the jury

23

from whether [the surviving victim] was telling the truth, or transform the case into a battle of the

24

experts.@ Id., at 790.

25

Beames asserts his case is entirely unlike Richter. The prosecution case against Beames was

26

predicated on forensic science, not on percipient witness testimony as in Richter. Pediatric forensic

27

pathology was not a distracting sideshow that could reasonably be avoided, it was the very crux of the

28

case. See Elmore v. Ozmint, 661 F.3d 783, 863 (4th Cir. 2011) (AHere, in stark contrast to Richter,
19

1

forensic evidence was always and obviously vital to the State=s case . . .@). Accordingly, Beames

2

argues Rothbaum could not possibly have made a reasonable judgment to focus on Amore important

3

duties,@ as was the case in Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 789. Given the nature of the present case, Beames

4

asserts there could be no more important duty than testing the accuracy of Dr. Dollinger=s conclusions

5

about what killed Cassie and whether her most horrific injuries -- the severed liver, broken ribs and

6

burns -- were sustained pre-mortem or post-mortem. A decision to concede these issues cannot

7

reasonably have been made without investigation into Dr. Dollinger=s methods and conclusions. The

8

Richter Court recognized that A[c]riminal cases will arise where the only reasonable and available

9

defense strategy requires consultation with experts or introduction of expert evidence, whether pretrial,

10
11

at trial, or both.@ Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 788. Beames contends that this is such a case.
In presenting his argument, Beames emphasizes that Dr. Ophoven=s opinion was based on

12

medical information and forensic techniques which existed at the time of Cassie=s autopsy. Had

13

Rothbaum engaged a qualified forensic pediatric pathologist to review Dr. Dollinger=s work, he or she

14

would have reached the same conclusion as did Dr. Ophoven regarding the cause of Cassie=s injuries

15

and death.

16

Beames contends the state court was presented with documentary evidence about the

17

incompetence of the prosecution=s experts, Drs. Dollinger, Stephens, and Bennett, as well as

18

information that could and should have been used to impeach them. Beames presented evidence in the

19

state court and in this Court that Dr. Dollinger=s errors in this case were similar to serious errors he

20

made in five other infant death cases in 1995, for which he was disciplined by the California Medical

21

Board. In four of those cases, he failed to perform any microscopic examination of the infants= tissues,

22

and in all five cases, he misdiagnosed the cause of death, and was found grossly negligent in the five

23

cases. Exhibit 2 (In the Matter of the Accusation Against Armand L. Dollinger, M.D., Medical Board

24

of California File).

25

Beames asserts the state court knew Rothbaum=s cross-examination of Dr. Dollinger was brief,

26

that Rothbaum only questioned him about minor discrepancies, complimented him on the

27

thoroughness of his autopsy report, and reviewed his opinion of the timing of the various injuries.

28

Vol. 9, RT:945-958. Even in the absence of retaining his own expert, had Rothbaum consulted
20

1

standardized forensic pathology texts readily available at the time of trial, Beames contends Rothbaum

2

would have discovered numerous steps critical to a suspected child abuse autopsy that were not

3

performed in this case. These include: collection of organ and blood samples for bacteriological

4

studies to check for infection; collection of vitreous humor to check for dehydration; collection of

5

urine for metabolic studies; microscopic examination, including use of special stains, of all organs,

6

skin and subcutaneous tissues; recording of post-mortem changes and the extent of putrefaction. Dr.

7

Dollinger was not cross-examined about these omissions, and was not questioned about whether

8

Cassie=s injuries were consistent with resuscitation attempts, even though autopsies in suspected child

9

abuse cases should attempt to distinguish between injuries caused by resuscitation attempts and caused

10

by assault. Rothbaum also failed to use the medical records of Darrian, specifically his history of

11

malnutrition, infection, and wasting, in cross-examining Dr. Dollinger about whether Darrian=s

12

condition was consistent with the theory that he and Cassie were victims of chronic neglect, and that

13

the home environment presented a threat of fatal malnutrition and infection. Beames maintains that

14

cross-examination on these matters would have revealed many of the errors identified by Dr.

15

Ophoven.

16

Beames stresses that the California Supreme Court was informed Rothbaum rejected any and

17

all jury instructions on lesser included degrees of homicide, choosing to bet Beames= life on an all-or-

18

nothing choice between capital murder and outright acquittal. The record reflects Rothbaum gave an

19

unexplained affirmation to the trial judge when asked whether this was a strategic decision. Vol. 12,

20

RT:1227. Beames specifically alleged in his state pleadings that this decision was neither strategic nor

21

reasonable, given the weakness of the defense that was presented and Rothbaum=s failure to subject the

22

state=s forensic evidence to adversarial testing. Competent counsel would have been armed with the

23

evidence described above, and would have sought instructions on lesser offenses that would not

24

subject Beames to the death penalty.

25
26

(1) IAC relating to Prosecution Experts
Beames claims Rothbaum was ineffective for failing to: (1) adequately cross-examine Dr.

27

Dollinger about his methodology regarding the autopsy, Cassie=s overall health at time of death, and

28

Cassie=s under-developed size, to advance the theory Cassie died of starvation and a secondary
21

1

infection; (2) adequately cross-examine Dr. Dollinger about the timing of Cassie=s injuries and about

2

the time of death prior to autopsy; (3) adequately cross-examine Dr. Dollinger about the cause of

3

Cassie=s rib and liver injuries to advance the theory they were caused by frantic, untrained attempts at

4

resuscitation and thus were caused post-mortem; (4) adequately cross-examine Dr. Dollinger about

5

injuries to Cassie=s mouth to advance the theory they were caused post-mortem by insects; and (5)

6

investigate Dr. Dollinger=s background and impeach him about alleged prior unprofessional conduct.3

7

Beames also contends Rothbaum was ineffective for failing to: (1) cross-examine Dr. Stephens

8

with evidence of Beames’ statement that he attempted to “warm her blood” to revive Cassie; and (2)

9

impeach Dr. Bennett by inquiring into his recruitment and presenting evidence of his past history,

10

including alleged mistakes and prior cases showing prosecution bias, and by inquiring into why the

11

other experts did not agree the mark on Cassie’s neck was due to strangulation.

12
13

(2) Failure to Request Lesser Included Offense Instructions
Beames asserts Rothbaum was ineffective for requesting that no lesser included offense

14

instructions be given on the homicide count, which Beames was entitled to as a matter of law, thus

15

forcing the jury into an all-or-nothing decision. The California Supreme Court refused, on direct

16

appeal, to grant relief on the related claim of trial court error, finding the error was invited by

17

Rothbaum. People v. Beames, supra, 40 Cal. 4th at 926-928. Beames argues that in light of how

18

weak Rothbaum=s guilt phase defense was, it was not reasonable to decide to forego lesser included

19

homicide instructions. Beames further argues the state's case was weak regarding his premeditation of

20

the intent to inflict extreme pain on a living human for a sadistic purpose (regarding the first degree

21

murder charge) and the intent to kill (for the special circumstance). Had Rothbaum asked for a lesser

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Dr. Dollinger was disciplined by the Medical Board of California in 2001 pursuant to an
investigation into inaccurate causes of death in five infant autopsies which occurred from January
through March 1995 (prior to Beames’ trial in July, 1995). See Federal Petition, Exhibit 2. It is
unclear when the investigation into the incorrect diagnoses was initiated, but the error in all five cases
was the same, the failure to properly diagnose coarctation of the aorta (narrowing of the blood vessel
caused by malformation of tissue that projects into the lumen or channel of the aorta), and all the
infants were under six months of age at the time of death. The relevance of these dissimilar cases to
the allegations of error in Cassie’s autopsy is unclear, even had the incidents been available to be
discovered prior to Beames’ trial.
22

1

included offense instruction, Beames contends it is reasonably probable he would not have been

2

convicted of either first degree murder or the special circumstance.

3

ii) Warden’s Response

4

The Warden observes the primary defense theory at trial was based on Beames= story of what

5

happened: that a tool cart fell on Cassie and her death was accidental. The Warden argues that had

6

Rothbaum investigated and presented the starvation theory now urged, it would have harmed Beames=

7

credibility and the defense. The Warden contends Beames= testimony was more consistent with Dr.

8

Dollinger=s testimony regarding Cassie=s cause of death (massive hemorrhaging due to a transected

9

liver) than with Dr. Ophoven=s theory, as Dr. Ophoven=s theory does not account for Beames=

10

description of the pool of blood all around Cassie (which was corroborated by evidence of Cassie=s

11

blood on clothing, sheets, bedding and towels), nor is it consistent with all of Cassie=s physical injuries

12

which circumstantially point to a death caused by violence. The Warden asserts Beames has failed to

13

demonstrate that Rothbaum was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate and cross-examine the

14

prosecution=s experts.

15

The Warden contends that had all of Rothbaum’s alleged failures of been pursued, they would

16

have been inconsistent with Beames= version of the circumstances of Cassie=s death as related at trial;

17

that Rothbaum did obtain an admission from Dr. Dollinger that he could not give a precise time of

18

death; that Beames admitted Cassie had injuries to her face prior to her death, making the theory of

19

post-mortem injuries or decomposition incredible given the history of abuse suffered by Cassie and

20

her other injuries; and that Beames fails to cite any known unprofessional conduct by Dr. Dollinger

21

which counsel could have obtained prior to the conclusion of the trial, or that counsel should have

22

known existed, so there was no reason for counsel to investigate his conduct.

23

The Warden disputes the value of the supposed evidence Beames asserts Rothbaum should

24

have presented to impeach Doctors Stephens and Bennett. The Warden contends the notes of Beames’

25

statement differ from what Beames suggests, that the notes state he placed Cassie’s body by the heater

26

to warm her blood, and the notes also state Cassie crawled across a hot grate burring her hand and

27

foot, which contradicts the argument that most or all of Cassie’s burns were inflicted post mortem.

28

The Warden asserts the other experts were not asked about the mark on Cassie’s neck and there is no
23

1

evidence they disagreed with Dr. Bennett, and that only one account critical of Dr. Bennett’s opinion

2

was published at the time of Beames’ trial. The Warden contends the errors asserted in the article

3

published before Beames’ trial were not relevant to Dr. Bennett’s testimony, and that Rothbaum was

4

not ineffective for failing to present this evidence.

5

The Warden contends Beames agreed with Rothbaum to not seek lesser included instructions

6

to the murder count, and the inclusion of such instructions would have been inconsistent with Beames=

7

version of Cassie=s death. The Warden asserts that even if Rothbaum was deficient for failing to

8

investigate and present expert pediatric forensic testimony, to cross-examine the state=s experts, and to

9

request lesser included instructions, the alleged omissions were not prejudicial. The Warden contends

10

Cassie=s injuries demonstrate she was tortured and murdered, and the burns, which were inflicted

11

within days of her death, suggest an intent to inflict extreme pain and suffering. The expert opinion

12

that Cassie was tortured was corroborated by the history of abuse she had suffered. The Warden states

13

it is not reasonably probable the jury would have accepted the starvation theory of Cassie=s death in

14

light of her horrific injuries and Beames= own version of the events.

15

The Warden concludes there is no evidence the California Supreme Court used the improper

16

Strickland standard in adjudicating this claim. Citing Visciotti, supra, 537 U.S. 19, he further asserts

17

the state court used the correct test for prejudice despite the inclusion of the Afundamentally unfair@

18

language Beames challenges. In Visciotti, the United States Supreme Court held that occasional use of

19

imprecise language must be given the benefit of the doubt as state courts are presumed to know and

20

follow the law. 537 U.S. at 24. The Warden argues Beames cannot show an entitlement to federal

21

habeas relief given the totality of the evidence presented in state court.

22

iii) Beames’ Reply

23

Beames observes the Warden makes no attempt to rebut the allegations of Rothbaum’s

24

deficient performance and does not discuss any of the remarkable details of Rothbaum’s actual

25

performance, but instead argues that investigating and presenting evidence consistent with Dr.

26

Ophoven’s declaration to contradict the prosecution’s forensic evidence would have been inconsistent

27

and unbelievable in light of Beames’ account of Cassie’s death, and would have harmed rather than

28

helped Beames.
24

1

Beames contends whether or not his version of the facts was true, competent counsel would

2

want to know whether the prosecution’s expert witnesses had made mistakes that could be exploited

3

on cross-examination, and whether the experts had a history of incompetent and biased work. As the

4

prosecutor noted during closing arguments, Dr. Dollinger’s testimony was incredibly damaging to

5

Beames and much of his testimony could not be squared with Beames’ testimony. If Beames was to

6

have had any chance of success, he argues it was imperative that the prosecution’s experts be

7

vigorously impeached, yet Rothbaum made no effort to do so. Further, as Beames noted in his state

8

habeas petition, Rothbaum also failed to support his chosen defense. Rothbaum simply called Beames

9

to the stand and permitted his implausible account to be eviscerated by the prosecutor during cross

10
11

examination and closing argument.
Beames does not contend Rothbaum should have impeached the prosecution’s forensic

12

evidence in addition to calling Beames as a witness, but rather, had Rothbaum done a reasonable

13

investigation, Beames would not have testified at trial or been subjected to searing cross examination.

14

He maintains this Court should view Rothbaum’s deficient performance in that context. Beames

15

acknowledges it was perfectly apparent before he testified that he was unable to provide testimony

16

which could be squared with the prosecution’s heavily flawed, but unchallenged, scientific testimony.

17

Beames’ story was implausible at best and his record was such there was no likelihood the jury was

18

going to believe him. Even though Rothbaum did not find Beames’ story convincing, he made

19

Beames’ unsupported testimony the cornerstone of the defense.

20

Beames asserts that despite failing to directly contest the sufficiency of Beames’ allegations

21

about the cause of Cassie’s death, the Warden makes a number of other arguments about the asserted

22

“implausibility” of Beames’ state court allegations. The Warden notes the alleged contradictions in

23

the state court record between Dr. Ophoven’s declaration and testimony of various witnesses regarding

24

the presence of various non-fatal injuries, including burns on Cassie’s toes and fingers and injuries

25

around Cassie’s nose and mouth. Beames asserts that to the extent such discrepancies arguably exist,

26

the place to resolve them is through an evidentiary hearing, and they do not provide a basis for

27

summarily rejecting the entirety of Beames’ allegations or Dr. Ophoven’s declaration. More

28

importantly, Beames contends any alleged weaknesses in Dr. Ophoven’s declaration are not an
25

1

appropriate basis for finding that Rothbaum’s failure to provide expert testimony on this critical issue

2

lacked prejudicial effect. Beames notes that a prejudice analysis under Strickland should not

3

independently evaluate conflicting expert opinions and reach a factual conclusion about the matter in

4

dispute, but should ask only whether there is a reasonable probability that the expert testimony would

5

have affected the outcome. Correll v. Ryan, 539 F.3d 938, 952 n.6 (9th Cir. 2009). The question is

6

whether there is a reasonable probability that Dr. Ophoven’s testimony would have raised a reasonable

7

doubt in the mind of at least one juror as to Beames’ guilt. See Duncan v. Ornoski, 528 F.3d 1222,

8

1240-41, 1244 (9th Cir. 2008) (question for prejudice purposes is whether defense expert forensic

9

testimony would likely have caused at least one juror to have a reasonable doubt). If so, Beames

10

argues that confidence in the verdict is undermined. Id.

11

Beames emphasizes that Dr. Ophoven has identified very significant weaknesses in the

12

testimony of the prosecution experts on the single most critical issue of Beames’ trial, that is the cause

13

of Cassie’s death. To the extent the Warden arguably has identified alleged problems with some of the

14

conclusions Dr. Ophoven has drawn, Beames contends these problems should be fleshed out at an

15

evidentiary hearing. They do not provide a basis for discounting entirely the effect her testimony

16

might have had at trial. Dr. Ophoven found no evidence of intentional murder and no evidence of

17

torture, but concluded that Cassie died as a result of catastrophic neglect. A reasonable probability

18

exists that the presentation of this more favorable evidence regarding Cassie’s cause of death would

19

have made a difference to the outcome of Beames’ case. Beames concludes there is a reasonable

20

probability that, if Rothbaum had investigated and presented available evidence impeaching the

21

prosecution’s experts, he would have obtained a more favorable outcome at trial. Beames argues

22

habeas relief should be granted on Claim 11.

23

d) Analysis of Merits and Conclusion

24

To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Beames is required to establish both

25

that Rothbaum’s actions fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the alleged errors

26

resulted in prejudice. Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 687-88. To succeed on the first component,

27

Beames must overcome a “strong presumption” that Rothbaum’s performance fell within the “wide

28

range of reasonable professional assistance,” that his actions and omissions were part of sound trial
26

1

strategy, and that all significant decisions were the result of acceptable professional judgment. Id., 466

2

U.S. at 689. The issue is not what Rothbaum could have done, but whether the choices he made were

3

reasonable. Id., at 690. This review is “highly deferential,” and there is no constitutional violation

4

unless counsel made “errors so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is

5

reliable.” Id., at 689, 687.

6

The issue presented by Claim 11 is whether Rothbaum provided ineffective assistance by

7

failing to investigate and present expert testimony to counter the prosecution’s forensic evidence, and

8

whether that alternate expert testimony likely would have resulted in a non-capital conviction. The

9

jury at Beames’ trial was presented with evidence and expert opinion that Cassie had been abused in

10

the months before her death, and concluding that she died because Beames hit her so hard her liver

11

was torn in half and she internally bled to death. If credible evidence had been presented to the jury

12

that Cassie was neglected to the point of malnutrition, that she died from a massive infection which

13

her weakened body was unable to fight off, and that Beames’ efforts to revive her caused the tearing to

14

her liver after her death, it is more than reasonably likely the jury would not have returned a verdict of

15

premeditated torture murder.

16

Where, as here, the entire prosecution case is based on expert testimony, it was not a

17

reasonable strategy for Rothbaum to have failed to consult an expert to adequately evaluate the

18

prosecution’s evidence, to prepare for cross-examination, to prepare for and present a defense, or to

19

provide any counter to the prosecution experts’ testimonies. The Warden’ argument that the theory by

20

Beames’ present expert is inconsistent with Beames’ statements at trial ignores the fact that the

21

defense presented at trial was hopelessly unbelievable and weak. Competent counsel likely would not

22

have presented Beames’ account of the toppling tool cart to the jury. Rather, competent counsel

23

would have presented persuasive, forensically substantial evidence similar to Dr. Ophoven’s opinion

24

about Cassie’s cause of death. Accepting as true Dr. Ophoven’s declaration stating that Cassie’s cause

25

of death was due to neglect, it is impossible to say that Beames would not be entitled to relief.

26

Beames has presented a colorable claim: that is, he has alleged disputed facts which if proved would

27

entitle him to relief, regarding the ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to investigate and

28

present evidence countering the prosecution’s evidence regarding Cassie=s cause of death.
27

1

5) Order Granting Factual Development and Evidentiary Hearing
28 U.S.C. § 2254 governs whether Beames’ allegations in Claim 11 “entitle him to relief,” so

2
3

the decision to grant an evidentiary hearing takes into account the limitations of (d)(1) and (d)(2), and

4

the above determination that the California Supreme Court’s summary denial of Claim 11 was an

5

unreasonable determination of the facts. Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 474.

6

The Court anticipates Beames will present evidence consistent with the proffered declaration

7

of Dr. Ophoven, opining that Cassie’s cause of death was due to neglect, malnutrition, and infection,

8

and not as a result of torture. The Court also anticipates the Warden may wish to present his own

9

evidence on the issue of whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective.
The Court will consider evidence presented by way of stipulation, record expansion, and

10
11

testimony to determine whether the allegations in Claim 11 are, in fact, established. The parties are

12

directed to meet and confer and thereafter file a joint statement within 60 days of the date of this order,

13

setting forth their respective preparations for the hearing, including witnesses to be called,

14

documentary evidence to be introduced, pre-hearing discovery to be conducted, several proposed dates

15

for the evidentiary hearing, and a realistic, efficient time estimate.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated:

October 22, 2013 .
/s/ Anthony W. Ishii
Anthony W. Ishii
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28