Leslie v. McDaniel, Warden et al
Filing
57
ORDER DENYING 52 Petitioner's Motion to Stay. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus 30 is DENIED. The clerk of the court shall enter judgment accordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/22/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
WILBERT LESLIE,
10
Petitioner,
11
vs.
12
Case No. 3:08-CV-00453-LRH-(VPC)
E. K. MCDANIEL, et al.,
13
ORDER
Respondents.
14
15
Before the court are the second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
16
U.S.C. § 2254 (#30), respondents’ answer (#50), and petitioner’s reply (#51). The court finds that
17
relief is not warranted, and the court denies the petition.
18
19
Procedural History
After a jury trial in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, petitioner was
20
convicted of burglary, robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, and first-degree murder with the use
21
of a deadly weapon. For the count of murder, petitioner was sentenced to death. Ex. 18 (#40).
22
Petitioner appealed, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. Ex. 24 (#40).
23
Petitioner then filed a proper-person post-conviction habeas corpus petition in state court.
24
Ex. 31 (#41). Counsel was appointed, and counsel filed a supplemental petition. Ex. 32 (#41). The
25
district court denied the petition. Ex. 35 (#41). Petitioner appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court
26
affirmed the finding of guilt, but it vacated the death sentence and remanded to the district court for
27
a new penalty hearing. Ex. 41 (#41).
28
1
After returning to the district court, the parties entered into a penalty hearing agreement.
2
The prosecution agreed not to seek the death penalty. Petitioner agreed to be sentenced to life
3
imprisonment without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder and to an equal and
4
consecutive term for the use of a deadly weapon. Petitioner agreed to be sentenced to ten years
5
imprisonment for the burglary count. On the count of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon,
6
petitioner agreed to be sentenced to fifteen years for robbery and an equal and consecutive term for
7
use of a deadly weapon. The sentences for those two counts run concurrently with the sentences for
8
first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon. Ex. 44 (#42). The court agreed and sentenced
9
petitioner accordingly. Ex. 47 (#42). Petitioner appealed, and then he voluntarily dismissed his
10
11
appeal. Ex. 50 (#42).
Petitioner then commenced this action. His original petition (#10) contained eight grounds.
12
Ground 1 was a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for injecting personal opinion into the closing
13
argument, and it also was a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to that
14
misconduct. Ground 2 was a claim that the district court erred in allowing the testimony of one
15
witness with whom the prosecution had bargained for particular testimony. These two grounds have
16
remained the same in the first amended petition (#29) and the second amended petition (#30).
17
Grounds 3 though 8 of the original petition (#10) were claims of error in the penalty hearing that led
18
to petitioner being sentenced to death. The court dismissed those grounds because the death
19
sentence had been vacated and petitioner had agreed to be sentenced to two consecutive terms of life
20
imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Order (#9). Petitioner then asked to stay this action
21
while he pursued more post-conviction remedies in the state courts. The court granted his request.
22
Order (#22).
23
Petitioner filed a second post-conviction petition in the state district court. Ex. 51, 52 (#42).
24
That court dismissed the petition because it was untimely, successive, and abusive of the writ. Ex.
25
56 (#42) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 34.726, 34.810). Petitioner appealed. The Nevada Supreme
26
Court affirmed the denial for the same reasons. Ex. 58 (#42).
27
28
Petitioner returned to the court with his first amended petition (#29). The court dismissed
ground 3 in that petition because it was a claim of error in the state post-conviction proceedings.
-2-
1
The court also directed petitioner to amend grounds 4 through 9 of that petition because he was
2
claiming ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, and petitioner had no such right
3
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Order (#28). Petitioner then filed a second
4
amended petition (#30) that omitted the claim of error in the state post-conviction proceedings and
5
that corrected the defects in the other grounds.
6
Respondents moved to dismiss grounds 3 through 8 of the second amended petition (#30).
7
The court agreed with respondents arguments and dismissed those grounds because they were
8
procedurally defaulted in state court and because they were untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
9
§ 2244(d). Order (#48). Reasonable jurists would not disagree with the court’s conclusions on
10
those grounds, and the court will not issue a certificate of appealability for them.
11
Grounds 1 and 2 of the second amended petition remain.
12
Standard of Review
13
14
15
16
17
Congress has limited the circumstances in which a federal court can grant relief to a
petitioner who is in custody pursuant to a judgment of conviction of a state court.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated
on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
18
19
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in
light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
20
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). “By its terms § 2254(d) bars relitigation of any claim ‘adjudicated on the
21
merits’ in state court, subject only to the exceptions in §§ 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2).” Harrington v.
22
Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 784 (2011).
23
24
25
Federal habeas relief may not be granted for claims subject to § 2254(d) unless it is shown
that the earlier state court’s decision “was contrary to” federal law then clearly established in
the holdings of this Court, § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000); or
that it “involved an unreasonable application of” such law, § 2254(d)(1); or that it “was
based on an unreasonable determination of the facts” in light of the record before the state
court, § 2254(d)(2).
26
27
Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 785. “For purposes of § 2254(d)(1), ‘an unreasonable application of federal
28
law is different from an incorrect application of federal law.’” Id. (citation omitted). “A state
-3-
1
court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded
2
jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state court’s decision.” Id. (citation omitted).
3
4
5
6
7
[E]valuating whether a rule application was unreasonable requires considering the rule’s
specificity. The more general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in
case-by-case determinations.
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004).
Under § 2254(d), a habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or, as
here, could have supported, the state court’s decision; and then it must ask whether it is
possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent
with the holding in a prior decision of this Court.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 786.
As a condition for obtaining habeas corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show
that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in
justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law
beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.
Id., at 786-87.
14
Facts
15
There are more facts to the case than the court discusses here. The court limits its statement
16
of the facts to those facts relevant to grounds 1 and 2. Those grounds concern the testimony of the
17
witness Rhesa Gamble and a comment by the prosecutor about her testimony.
18
On August 9, 1994, a person later identified as petitioner robbed a 7-Eleven store and killed
19
John Prewitt, who worked there. He entered the store and demanded that Prewitt give him money
20
from the cash register. For emphasis, he fired a bullet from his revolver into the wall above and
21
behind Prewitt’s shoulder. Prewitt opened the cash register drawer, and the robber took money out
22
of it. The robber then shot Prewitt in the chest, killing him. The subsequent investigation recovered
23
both bullets, and tests indicated that both were fired from the same gun.
24
25
26
Security-camera videotape of the incident showed that the robber fired the revolver only
with difficulty.
Independent of the robbery-murder investigation, on September 3, 1994, patrol officer
27
Leonard Lorusso noticed a gold Cadillac at a public park. The car had a broken rear window, no
28
license plates, and expired temporary registration tags. Thinking that the car might be stolen,
-4-
1
Lorusso called for a truck to tow the car to an impound lot. Before the towing, Lorusso searched the
2
car for its inventory. He found a duffle bag that contained a revolver. Lorusso impounded the
3
revolver.
4
Rhesa Gamble had purchased the Cadillac, but she never registered her ownership. The
5
automobile dealership where she purchased the Cadillac took possession of it from the impound lot.
6
Shortly after its towing on September 3, 1994, Gamble called the dealership. She asked about the
7
gun and was told that no gun was in the car when the dealership took possession of the car. Gamble
8
never took the steps needed to regain possession of the Cadillac.
9
An anonymous tip connected the murder of Prewitt with the Cadillac and the gun. On
10
September 28, 2004, Detective Robert Leonard received a call from a woman on the police
11
department’s secret-witness line. The caller said that the killer was named Wilbert, nicknamed
12
Tuggy. The caller did not know Tuggy’s address, but did give directions to get to his house. The
13
caller noted that Tuggy’s dad also was named Wilbert, and that mother and father owned two
14
Hyundais, one older, painted brown primer, and one newer, painted teal. The caller told Leonard
15
that the police probably had the murder weapon in their possession. Tuggy had given or sold the
16
murder weapon to a girl, the girl kept the gun in her Cadillac, the Cadillac was towed, and when the
17
girl was able to look at the Cadillac, the gun was no longer in it. The caller never identified herself.
18
After reviewing the records of impounded weapons, Leonard located the revolver that
19
Lorusso had impounded from the Cadillac, and he had it tested. He learned two facts from the
20
testing of the revolver. First, the revolver was the murder weapon. Second, although the revolver
21
was operable, it was defective. To fire the revolver, a person would need to apply some pressure on
22
the cylinder-release lever, manually cock the hammer, and only then pull the trigger. The security-
23
camera videotape showed that this was the method that the robber used to fire the gun. Leonard also
24
learned that Rhesa Gamble had purchased the Cadillac in which the revolver was found.
25
26
Leonard located the residence described in the secret-witness call. He learned that petitioner
lived there. He obtained a photograph of petitioner from the police department’s records.
27
28
-5-
1
On October 7, 1994, Detectives Leonard and James Franks interviewed Gamble. She said
2
that her boyfriend, who was named Wilbert but liked to be called Tuggy, sold her the gun for $50.
3
The detectives showed her a photographic lineup, and she identified petitioner as her boyfriend.
4
The detectives then interviewed petitioner the same day. During the interview, the
5
detectives told petitioner that Gamble’s statement had placed the murder weapon in his hand. Based
6
upon Gamble’s statement and petitioner’s responses to their questions, the detectives arrested
7
petitioner.
8
The detectives believed that Gamble was more involved in the case than she had admitted.
9
With court authorization, they tapped her phone line. On November 10, 1994, they recorded a
10
conversation between Gamble and Shanee Lakes. Gamble also spoke with Rochelle Jones. To
11
summarize the conversations, Gamble said that she drove with petitioner and a person known only
12
as Big Dave to the 7-Eleven, so that petitioner could rob the store. Petitioner left the car and told
13
her to drive around for a while. She did, and she returned. Petitioner was outside, and he told her to
14
drive around some more. Again she did. When she returned the second time, petitioner entered the
15
car. Petitioner said that he had killed Prewitt clerk because Prewitt clerk would not give him
16
money. Petitioner gave the gun to Gamble.
17
On December 1, 1994, Gamble testified before the grand jury. Gamble recanted parts of her
18
statement to the police. She testified that she actually had purchased the gun from an unknown man
19
outside a casino. She also testified that the detectives told her what to say and whom she should
20
identify in the photographic lineup. She was warned about perjury, but she stuck to her new
21
statement.
22
On December 22, 1994, Gamble testified in a preliminary hearing. She gave the same
23
testimony that she gave before the grand jury. The justice of the peace warned Gamble that she
24
could be prosecuted for perjury if she was lying under oath. The prosecution then called Franks,
25
Lakes, and Jones to testify as to what Gamble had told them. The justice of the peace determined
26
that Gamble likely had committed perjury and ordered her arrest. Gamble was charged with murder
27
with the use of a deadly weapon, accessory to a felony, burglary, robbery with the use of a deadly
28
weapon, and perjury.
-6-
1
Gamble agreed to plead guilty to perjury in exchange for the dismissal of the other charges.
2
In the agreement, Gamble acknowledged that her grand-jury and preliminary-hearing testimonies
3
were false. The agreement required Gamble to testify truthfully at petitioner’s trial, or the
4
agreement would be void.
5
At trial, Gamble testified largely in accordance with her statement to police and her
6
statements to her friends. The prosecution also introduced into evidence the recording of the
7
telephone conversation between her and Lakes. On cross-examination, she testified about her
8
previous testimony before the grand jury and at the preliminary hearing. On redirect examination,
9
she testified that her initial statement to police was the correct statement. Lakes and Jones also
10
testified as to what Gamble had told them.
11
In the defense closing argument, defense counsel argued that Gamble was lying in her
12
statement to police, that she realized she would need to maintain that lie to keep herself out of
13
trouble, and that Gamble finally decided to come clean and admit in her testimony before the grand
14
jury and at the preliminary hearing that she had lied earlier. Counsel also noted how, at those two
15
hearings, Gamble maintained that she was telling the truth even after being threatened with perjury.
16
Ex. 15, at 73-75 (#39).
17
The prosecution then gave its rebuttal argument. The prosecutor said:
18
And on cross-examination, she very freely discussed how detectives allegedly planted
information with her, how detectives allegedly told her that number two in the photographic
lineup was Tuggy before she even saw it. We now know that’s incorrect.
19
20
21
Ex. 15, at 114 (#39) (emphasis added).
In ground 1, petitioner claims that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance because
22
counsel failed to object to the sentence emphasized above. Petitioner argues that the statement was
23
an attempt by the prosecutor to inject personal opinion and to usurp the fact-finding process.
24
“[T]he right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.” McMann v.
25
Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 & n.14 (1970). A petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of
26
counsel must demonstrate (1) that the defense attorney’s representation “fell below an objective
27
standard of reasonableness,” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), and (2) that the
28
attorney’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant such that “there is a reasonable
-7-
1
probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have
2
been different,” id. at 694. “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim
3
to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the
4
defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Id. at 697.
5
Strickland expressly declines to articulate specific guidelines for attorney performance
6
beyond generalized duties, including the duty of loyalty, the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, the
7
duty to advocate the defendant’s cause, and the duty to communicate with the client over the course
8
of the prosecution. 466 U.S. at 688. The Court avoided defining defense counsel’s duties so
9
exhaustively as to give rise to a “checklist for judicial evaluation of attorney performance. . . . Any
10
such set of rules would interfere with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel and
11
restrict the wide latitude counsel must have in making tactical decisions.” Id. at 688-89.
12
Review of an attorney’s performance must be “highly deferential,” and must adopt counsel’s
13
perspective at the time of the challenged conduct to avoid the “distorting effects of hindsight.”
14
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. A reviewing court must “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s
15
conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must
16
overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered
17
sound trial strategy.’” Id. (citation omitted).
18
The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee effective counsel per se, but rather a fair
19
proceeding with a reliable outcome. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691-92. See also Jennings v.
20
Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2002). Consequently, a demonstration that counsel fell
21
below an objective standard of reasonableness alone is insufficient to warrant a finding of
22
ineffective assistance. The petitioner must also show that the attorney’s sub-par performance
23
prejudiced the defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691-92. There must be a reasonable probability that,
24
but for the attorney’s challenged conduct, the result of the proceeding in question would have been
25
different. Id. at 694. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence
26
in the outcome.” Id.
27
28
Establishing that a state court’s application of Strickland was unreasonable under § 2254(d)
is all the more difficult. The standards created by Strickland and § 2254(d) are both “highly
deferential,” . . . and when the two apply in tandem, review is “doubly” so . . . . The
-8-
1
2
3
Strickland standard is a general one, so the range of reasonable applications is substantial.
Federal habeas courts must guard against the danger of equating unreasonableness under
Strickland with unreasonableness under § 2254(d). When § 2254(d) applies, the question is
not whether counsel’s actions were reasonable. The question is whether there is any
reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.
4
5
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 788 (2011) (citations omitted).
On this issue, the Nevada Supreme Court held:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
During his guilt phase closing argument, the prosecutor stated, “And on cross examination,
[Rhesa Gamble] very freely discussed how detectives allegedly told her that number two in
the photographic lineup was [Leslie] before she even saw it. We now know that’s
incorrect.” (Emphasis added.) Leslie contends that the prosecutor improperly asserted his
personal opinion of Gamble’s credibility and usurped the jury’s fact-finding function by
using the word “we.”
Even if we assume that trial counsel was deficient in not challenging the prosecutor’s
statement, we conclude that Leslie cannot demonstrate that the error prejudiced his defense.
The prosecutor’s statement addressed a portion of Gamble’s testimony in which she stated
that the detectives pointed to Leslie’s picture before she had the opportunity to identify him
in a photographic lineup. Immediately thereafter, the prosecutor inquired whether she
picked Leslie out of the lineup of her own volition or because the detectives suggested that
she do so. Gamble repeatedly stated that she picked Leslie’s photograph out of the lineup
because she recognized him. Also, Gamble later testified that the detectives did not attempt
to influence her with respect to the photographic lineup. Because Gamble made it clear that
she identified Leslie of her own volition and not because of the detectives’ suggestion,
Leslie’s claim does not raise a reasonable probability that the jury’s verdict would have been
different had trial counsel objected to the prosecutor’s statement. Therefore, the district
court properly denied relief on this ground.
17
Ex. 41, at 3-4 (#41). There are two other factors in addition to what the Nevada Supreme Court
18
stated. Defense counsel cross-examined Gamble on her testimony before the grand jury and at the
19
preliminary hearing. He then argued to the jury that Gamble’s prior testimony was correct and that
20
her testimony at trial was incorrect. In other words, defense counsel invited the prosecutor’s
21
comment. Furthermore, when taken in its full context, the prosecutor’s comment was the
22
introduction to an argument. After he said, “We now know that’s incorrect,” the prosecutor argued
23
at length about how the other facts of the case showed that Gamble’s prior testimony could not have
24
been anything but false. See Ex. 15, at 114-17 (#39). The prosecutor was not trying to inject
25
personal opinion and usurp the fact-finding process; he was responding to a defense argument. The
26
Nevada Supreme Court applied Strickland reasonably in holding that defense counsel did not
27
provide ineffective assistance. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
28
-9-
1
In ground 2, petitioner claims that the state district court erred in allowing Rhesa Gamble to
2
testify, because the prosecution had bargained for particularized testimony from her. This ground
3
has two legal components. First, petitioner argues that the bargain violates state law, as stated in
4
Sheriff v. Acuna, 819 P.2d 197 (Nev. 1991). A state-court ruling on evidence is not addressable in
5
federal habeas corpus unless the ruling makes the proceedings fundamentally unfair. Estelle v.
6
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Second, petitioner argues that the threat of prosecution
7
effectively drove Gamble from the witness stand, in violation of the due process clause of the
8
Fourteenth Amendment. See Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (1972). On these issues, the Nevada
9
Supreme Court held:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Leslie argues that this agreement to cooperate constituted an improper bargaining for
particularized testimony. See Sheriff v. Acuna, 107 Nev. 664, 669, 819 P.2d 197, 200
(1991).
We conclude that the State did not improperly bargain for particularized testimony. Gamble
was charged with perjury and the other charges because evidence of her October recorded
statement to the police and the testimony of Shanee Lakes and Rochelle Jones all indicated
that Gamble was present at the 7-Eleven with Leslie and that Leslie had sold her the murder
weapon, contrary to her later testimony. In her plea agreement, Gamble admitted to giving
perjurious testimony at the two previous proceedings and admitted that she drove Leslie to
the 7-Eleven. Furthermore, the Agreement to Cooperate memorandum stated only that
Gamble agreed to testify “truthfully” at Leslie’s trial, as determined by the court. This
requirement is in accord with NRS 174.061(1)(b), which states that if a defendant agrees to
testify for the prosecution against another defendant in exchange for a reduced sentence, the
agreement “[m]ust be in writing and include a statement that the agreement is void if the
defendant’s testimony is false.”
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Leslie argues that the prosecution dictated to Gamble what the “truth” was by virtue of the
fact that she was charged with perjury for her testimony at the two previous proceedings and,
therefore, that this case is substantially similar to People v. Medina, 116 Cal. Rptr. 133, 135
(Ct. App. 1974) (concluding that the prosecution improperly bargained for particularized
testimony when it granted defendants immunity in return for testimony on the condition that
“the witness not materially or substantially change her testimony from her tape recorded
statement already given to law enforcement officers”). We conclude that Leslie’s argument
lacks merit. Credible evidence, including Gamble’s original statement to the police, her
possession of the murder weapon, the testimony of Shanee Lakes and Rochelle Jones, and
wiretap recordings of conversations between Shanee and Gamble, all indicated that Gamble
was present with Leslie at the 7-Eleven. Therefore, pursuant to Acuna, the prosecution was
permitted to bargain for specific testimony essentially consistent with the information
represented to be factually true during Gamble’s negotiations with the State. Acuna, 107
Nev. at 669, 819 P.2d at 200.
Leslie also argues that the State’s action in charging Gamble with numerous crimes
constituted an improper interference with a potential defense witness which “effectively
drove that witness off the stand, and thus deprived [the appellant] of due process of law
under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98 (1972). We disagree
and note that the facts in Webb are distinctly different from those presented in the case at
-10-
1
2
3
bar. In Webb, the judge told the defendant’s only witness prior to testifying about the
penalty for perjury and that he expected the witness to lie, and also informed the witness,
who was serving a prison sentence at the time, that a conviction of perjury would hurt the
witness’ chances of parole. Id. at 97. The Supreme Court stated that such threatening
remarks effectively drove the witness off the stand and deprived the defendant of due
process. Id. at 98.
4
5
6
No such threats were made in the instant case. The prosecutor and justice of the peace
warned Gamble about perjury only after hearing some of her testimony, and the warnings
were not threatening as were those in Webb. Furthermore, the district court did not err in
advising Gamble of the consequences of perjury or in cautioning her about testifying
truthfully. State v. Martinez, 653 P.2d 879, 884 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982).
7
8
9
Ex. 24, at 11-13 (#40).
This was not a situation in which Gamble gave two inconsistent statements of equal weight,
10
and then the prosecution used the threat of a perjury charge to force her to testify with the statement
11
that was more favorable to the prosecution. Gamble lied when she testified at the grand jury and at
12
the preliminary hearing. The Nevada Supreme Court, quoted above, laid out all the facts that were
13
strongly consistent with Gamble’s original statement to the police. For Gamble’s testimony at the
14
grand jury and at the preliminary hearing to be true, everybody else, including Gamble herself
15
because of her recorded telephone conversation, would need to have been lying, and lying
16
consistently with each other. The plea bargain with Gamble did not make the proceedings
17
fundamentally unfair.
18
The Nevada Supreme Court also reasonably determined that the acts of the prosecutor and
19
the justice of the peace were different from what happened in Webb. As the Nevada Supreme Court
20
noted, the trial judge in Webb threatened the defense witness with a prosecution for perjury before
21
the witness could testify. Also, it was unclear in Webb whether the trial judge had any reason to
22
give that threat, because it was unclear what the witness’ testimony would have been. The witness
23
might have intended to testify to an alibi for the defendant, which would have been problematic for
24
the witness because the defendant had been caught red-handed. On the other hand, the defense
25
counsel in Webb had certified to the state courts that the witness would not have been called unless
26
he had been interviewed previously and found to have information helpful to the defense. 409 U.S.
27
at 99 & footnote (Blackmun, J., dissenting). In contrast, Gamble did testify, and the other evidence
28
presented in those proceedings, including her own statements people other than the police, indicated
-11-
1
that she was lying. Only after she testified was she warned about perjury, and the prosecutor and the
2
justice of the peace had good reason to warn her. Ground 2 is without merit.
3
4
5
Reasonable jurists would not find these conclusions to be debatable or wrong, and the court
will not issue a certificate of appealability for grounds 1 and 2.
Also before the court are petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance (#52), respondents’
6
opposition (#54), and petitioner’s reply (#55). Petitioner asks the court to stay this action until
7
currently pending state post-conviction proceedings are concluded. Respondents correctly note that
8
the ground petitioner is raising in state court—the validity of the instruction given to jury that
9
defined willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder—is not a ground that petitioner raises in the
10
second amended petition (#30). Petitioner has not moved to amend the petition to include this
11
ground. A stay would not have any effect upon the resolution of the remaining grounds, and it is not
12
in the interest of justice to stay this action.
13
14
15
16
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance (#52) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus
(#30) is DENIED. The clerk of the court shall enter judgment accordingly.
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
18
DATED this 22nd day of October, 2012.
19
20
21
_________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-12-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?