WPC2 y**<<'5*\ xَMXm6SU6c_0aRfPgS)x?R 8Zgv@wS=ݳczNec3CZSV/=s&'K&Dqj;=ٞsw̫/_ĤưXy^sdQ 8wp N3sؼ3n|TJ RI\zpb|F=0o#d_mjP7ך^̤CE `%S),6ek:/›dQ7׳ oIe]&7@g\};e=[&I}h<`B|| t]z|&]Զ=F /^KUPsy=|Υ-k <7 ;Jmb[3G4lX LV7_^z0AcEO=$G# UN %% 0(+ wS 4W k z m|  0eY  U8|U>Uz>N0^ 2M> 01B 0=s 0 0>x 0 0 04 0a 0I 0 09 0 02 0 0: 0. 0_ 0  0k 0 B*N D3x C D+ 0 0 06! 0! 0:" 0h# 0F~#U6# 0L#U*F$ 0wp$ 0$ 1q% 1u% 0 cm& 0& 0p' 0$( 0( 0) 1* 1>+f+a+b+ 0)+f ,a,f",a$, %8, !], ~, +, ', , %- !%- F- 1[- -- !- --U >.ME.fI.aK.M_. B c.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.M.f.a.M.f.a.M.b.(. 72/ `2/2/ 0 N/ f/ \F0 ^0b1\b1X1Z2222222fp2ar2f2a2HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60x9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($.'qf3|xUI., II.,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#)N2Quick I.   .0   $ ' 4J. Bradley O'Connell40J. Bradley O'Connell .   )\  ` TmsRmn 12ptZ &Times New Roman\  `&Times New Roman q. 0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK2<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K2<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K2<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I()4$ ** ddI  B    ?4%2A`Arial?9*)*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d'''''dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI()4$** ddI  B    ?4%2A`Arial?9*)*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK2<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK2<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New>c$"Small Circle"0 %2A`Arial(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (# jsCEKQW]cioAutoList1IVA.1.IVIVIVIVIV3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#956:;<=>xGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List956:;<=>hCEIMQUY]aAutoList222222222i)1)a)TABLE A- -( $PTABLE BPTABLE BDFEDERAL CASESDSTATE CASESDCASESDFEDERAL STATUTESDSTATE STATUTESDSTATUTESDFEDERAL RULESDSTATE RULESDRULESDFEDERAL REGULATIONSDSTATE REGULATIONSDREGULATIONSDOTHER AUTHORITIES\  `&Times New RomanTABLE A dPTABLE BPTABLE B 8i) HOW TO DO IT--BASICS OF RAISING, PRESERVING &(O$II. WAIVER, PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, AND STATE HABEASIII. CREATIVE FEDERALIZING (HELPFUL GENERALIV COMMON ISSUE CATEGORIES AND CORRESPONDINGII. WAIVER, PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, AND STATE HABEASHOW TO DO IT--BASICS OF RAISING, PRESERVING &III. CREATIVE FEDERALIZING (HELPFUL GENERALIV COMMON ISSUE CATEGORIES AND CORRESPONDINGTABLE APTABLE B !  _XXC8Xdd8 @ MAKING AFEDERALCASEOUTOFIT  @ "Federalization"Reminders,Tips,&Exhortations o t@ J.BradleyOConnell i  @ StaffAttorney,FirstDistrictAppellateProject g  @&&&May2002 e  @"TABLEOFCONTENTS _  4t oO  5  I._ HOWTODOIT!BASICSOFRAISING,PRESERVING    ` ANDEXHAUSTINGFEDERALCLAIMS6oO&  7 T...............................1  4s oO  5  II.WAIVER,PROCEDURALDEFAULT,ANDSTATE  Ѐ0 ` HABEASCONSIDERATIONS6roO  7 Ԁ..................................................4` `  4u oO  5  III.CREATIVEFEDERALIZING(HELPFULGENERAL    ` DOCTRINESFORPOSSIBLEFEDERALBASESFOR    ` HARDTOCHARACTERIZECLAIMS)6oO  7 Ԁ.................................7  4v oO  5  IV.COMMONISSUECATEGORIESANDCORRESPONDING   ` FEDERALCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS6foOz  7 Ԁ...........................11    ! jC@   MAKINGAFEDERALCASEOUTOFIT   @  Federalization Reminders,Tips,&Exhortations      J.BradleyOConnell  StaffAttorney,FirstDistrictAppellateProject  May2002     )N     )NO  I  .0 `   % m HOWTODOITBASICSOFRAISING,PRESERVING&   EXHAUSTINGFEDERALCLAIMS%m   )NO y  ی ` `  Ќ  3c  3c "0 `   Mustraisefederalclaiminthestateproceedings inorderto    exhaustitforanyfuturefederalhabeaspetition.Duncanv.Henry   (1995)513U.S.364(summarilyreversing9thCir.grantofhabeas   relief;stateappealwhichhadframed otheroffensesissuein   traditionalCal.lawterms(Evid.Code352,1101,etc.)didnot   exhaustclaimthattheevidenceviolateddueprocess).3c ݌` `  Ќ  3c  3c7"0 `   Mustexplicitlypresentitasafederalclaim,byexplicitreference  tofederalconstitutionalprovisionsorfederalcaselaw . STATE  BRIEFINGWHICHRELIESONLYONSTATECASES  APPLYINGFEDERALCONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONSIS  NOTENOUGHTOEXHAUSTTHEFEDERALCLAIM.   Petersonv.Lampert(9thCir.2002)277F.3d1073  (petitionforreview  toOregonSupremeCourtdidnotexhaust6thAmen.ineffective  assistanceclaim,wherethepetitiononlycitedleadingOregon  ineffectiveassistancecase(OregonequivalentofPope),butnot  Stricklandor6thAmen.)3c7R݌` `  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3c"0 ` `   Wesimplydonotagreethat...thecitationofstatelawcasesin  whichfederallawisappliedtoastatelawclaimfairlypresents   afederalclaimtoastatesupremecourt.Simplyandclearly ! identifyingthefederalnatureofaclaimdoesnotseemtobetoo " muchtoaskofpetitioners.Peterson,supra,atp.1079.3c݌#  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3c>"0 ` `   HavingbeenslappeddownbytheSupremeCourtinDuncanv. $  Henry,the9thCir.isnowtakingamorerestrictiveviewof %!! exhaustionthanotherfederalcircuits.CompareRamirezv. &"" AttorneyGeneralofNewYork(2ndCir.2001)280F.3d87,94 '## 96.3c>Y݌($$  Ќ   ` 3c  3cC"0   Thismeans nomore Popeclaims, Marsdenerrors, )%%  Wheelermotions, Arandaseverance, 1368/competency *&& hearings,etc! Thoughitsfinetorefertothecorresponding +'' statecaselaworstatutes,thestatebriefingmustalsoexplicitly  refertofederalcaselaw(e.g.,Strickland,Batson,Bruton,etc.)  ortothespecificfederalconstitutionalrightunderlyingthestate  casesorstatutes(e.g.,6thAmen.righttoconflictfreecounsel  underlyingMarsden;federaldueprocessunderlying1368).3cC^݌  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3c"0 ` `   Notethatthisissimilartoo,butnotquitethesame,asquestion   ofwhethertrialcounselmustexpressly federalizeobjections   (e.g.,coupleevery hearsayobjectionw/areferenceto6th   Amen.confrontation).Buttrial federalizationismoreofa    proceduraldefault,thanan exhaustionquestion.Aslong   asappellatebriefsandpet.forreviewexpresslyraisefederal   claimandstateappellatecourtconsidersit(asmanystate   appellatedecisionsstilldo),theresnoproblem. Procedural   default(anddilemmaofhowtoovercomeit)arisewhenstate   appellatecourtexpresslyrefusestoconsiderfederalclaim  becauseitwasntproperlypresentedbelow.E.g.,Peoplev.  Barnett(1998)17Cal.4th1044,1119fn.54;Peoplev.  Rodrigues(1994)8Cal.4th1060,1116fn.20;Peoplev.Ashmus  (1991)54Cal.3d932,972fn.10.3c݌  Ќ  3c  3c"0 `   Mustexhaustboththe factualand legalaspectsofthefederal  claim. See Vasquezv.Hillery(1986)474U.S.254,258260;see,e.g.,  Aikenv.Spalding(9thCir.1988)841F.2d881(findinglackof  exhaustionwherenewevidencereaudibilityofrequestforcounselhad  notbeenpresentedtostatecourts).B.` hp x (#XB##  󀀀3c ݌` `  Ќ   ?956:;<=>(x38"93"  0 ` 93G"23  0 ` `   E.g.,ifWheelerBatsonmotionconcerns6jurors,Batsonwillbe   exhaustedonlyastothosespecificjurors,whoseexclusionis  addressedinboththestateappealandthepetitionforreview.  Similarly,ifstateappealframesissuesolelyintermsofracial   bias,anyotherformofbiasconcerningthosejurorsexclusion ! (e.g.,gender,religion)wouldlikelynotbeconsidered " exhausted.93G""݌#  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3c>%"0 ` `   Notethatthisalsogoesforstateappellaterulingsthatfrustrate $  adequatepresentationofafederalclaime.g.,stateappellate %!! courtsrefusaltoaugmentrecordwithvoirdireofunchallenged &"" jurors.Inthatsituation,thefederalerrorintheaugmentation '## denialshoulditselfbe exhausted(&includedinanypet.for ($$ review)asadenialofrightstodueprocess,equalprotection, )%% andeffectiveassistanceofcounselonappeal.SeeEnstminger *&& v.Iowa(1967)386U.S.748,&othercasescitedinPartIVH, +'' infra( AppellateProcessIssues)..3c>%Y%݌  Ќ  3c  3c("0 `   Federalclaimmustbeproperlypresentedinstateproceedings.   Presentingfederalclaimonlybelatedlyorinawaythatstatecourtisnt  requiredtoconsideritdoesntexhausttheclaim.E.g.,Castillev.  Peoples(1989)489U.S.346(presentationoffederalclaimforfirst   timeindiscretionarypetitiontostatesupremecourtdidntexhaustit).   Inthatsituation,claimwillonlybeconsideredexhaustedif,despitethe   lateorimproperpresentation,statecourtactuallyconsidereditonthe   merits.E.g.,Greenev.Lambert(9thCir.March26,2002)__F.3d__,    02C.D.O.S.2689(federalclaimfirstraisedinpet.forrehearing   deemedexhausted,butonlybecauseOregonSupremeCourtamended   itsopiniontotakenoteofclaim).3c((݌ ` `  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3c2-"0 ` `   Importantlessonfor fallbackineffectiveassistanceclaims.    NumerousCal.casesmakeclearthatan appellatecourt  needntconsideranyclaim(includinganIACclaim)raised   forfirsttimeinareplybrief. E.g.,InreRickyH.(1992)10   Cal.App.4th552,562;Peoplev.Dunn(1995)40Cal.App.4th  1039,1055.Hence,thepracticeofreplyingtoAttyGens   waiverargumentbyaddinganIACclaimtoreplybriefdoes  littlegood.Ifstateappellatecourtfindsunderlyingsubstantive  claim(e.g.,evidentiaryorinstructionalerror,prosecutorial  misconduct)waivedanddeclinestoreachIACclaim,neither  issueisadequatelypreservedforlaterfederalhabeasreview.3c2-M-݌  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3cm1"0 ` `   Thoughitmightseemmore safejusttosneakthenewIAC  argumentintothereply,itreallyisnt.Instead,choicereally  comesdownto:(1)toughingitoutonthemeritswithoutanIAC  claimanddisputingtheAttyGenswaiverargument;(2)  arguingthemeritsinthereplybriefandalsoseekingleaveto   fileashortsupplementalbriefwithanalternativeIACargument; ! and/or(3)raisingtheIACclaiminastatehabeaspetition.3cm11݌"  Ќ  3c  3cL4"0 `   MustpresentfederalclaimtoCaliforniaSupremeCourt. $   OSullivanv.Boerckel(1999)526U.S.838.Astoanyclaimbasedon %!! theappellaterecord,exhaustionusuallyrequires(1)explicitlyraising &"" thefederalclaiminthestateappellatebriefs;and(2)explicitly '##  renewingthatfederalclaiminatimelypetitionforreview.3cL4g4݌($$` `  Ќ  &     % p II.0 ` WAIVER,PROCEDURALDEFAULT,ANDSTATEHABEAS  CONSIDERATIONS. ` `  %p63c  3cW7"0 `   Disclaimer: 󀀀Thesematerialsaredesignedtoassistcounselinraising  '6and exhaustingfederalclaimsondirectappeal.Theyarenot  designedasaguidetoeitherfederalhabeasrulesandlimitations   ( proceduraldefault, causeandprejudice,AEDPAstandards,etc.)   ortostatehabeaspractice.(Fortheauthorsviewsonthelatter   subject,seeOConnell, TheUnchartedWorldofNonCapitalState   HabeasCorpusPractice(Oct.1998)Cal.Crim.DefensePracticeRptr.   p.637.Forcomprehensiveguidetofederalhabeasprocedure,see   Hertz&Liebman(4thed.2001)FederalHabeasCorpusPractice&   Procedure.)3cW7r7݌ ` `  Ќ  3c  3cS;"0 `   Evenifappellatecounselproperly federalizesaclaiminappellate  briefsandpetitionforreview,stateappellatecourtmayrefuseto  consideritongroundthatitwasntproperlypreservedattrial.That   proceduraldefaultrulingmayormaynotblockfederalhabeas  review,dependinguponwhetherthefederalcourtconcludesthestate  proceduralruleisan adequateandindependentground.Seegenerally  Colemanv.Thompson(1991)501U.S.772,andcasesdiscussedthere.  ЀAssumingthattheproceduraldefaultis adequateandindependent,  whatcanadefendantdotogetastateappellaterulingthataclaim(or  thefederaldimensionofclaim)hasbeenwaivedduetotheinadequate  presentationbelow?3cS;n;݌` `  Ќ  3c  3c?"0 `   Oneoption,ofcourse,issimplytoraiseanalternativeIACclaim  (citingStrickland,etc.)inthedirectappealonthetheorythatthere  couldbenotacticalreasonfornotadequatelypreservingtheobjection.   Thatwill,atleast,ensure exhaustionoftheunderlyingclaim,inthe !  envelopeofanIACclaim.But,exceptinthemostextreme " situations,aCaliforniaappellatecourtislikelytorejectanyIACclaim # ondirectappealonthetheorythattherecouldhavebeensometactical $  reasonfortheomission.3c??݌%!!` `  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3cB"0 ` `   Ironically,thatmeansthattheIACclaimsmostsuitablefor &"" directappealmaybethoseinwhichcounseldutifullytriedto '## raiseanissue,butfailedtodosoonthestrongestground.(E.g., ($$ wherecounselraisedastatelawobjection,butfailedtoassert )%% thecorrespondingfederalground.)Inthatsituation,counsel *&& plainlywantstochallengecertainevidenceorprosecutorial +'' tactic,sotheresnoconceivabletacticalgroundfornotdoingso  onthestrongestavailablelegalbasis.But,wherecounsel  completelymissedtheboatandneglectedtochallenge  somethingatall,itmaybemoredifficulttoraisetheclaimon  directappeal,becausetheappellatecourtmayspeculatethat  counselhadsomereasonfornotopposingthatevidence.3cBB݌   Ќ  3c  3cVG"0 `   Insituationswhereitsimpossibletoraiseanissueadequatelyon   appealdueto waiverobstacles,itmaybepossibletoexhaustitviaa   statehabeaspetition.Aswithdirectappealissues, exhaustionofa   federalclaimviastatehabeasproceedingsrequirespresentationofthat   claimtotheCaliforniaSupremeCourtviaeitherahabeaspetition   withintheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsoriginaljurisdictionorapetition   forreviewfromtheappellatecourtsdenialofahabeaspetition.3cVGqG݌ ` `  Ќ  3c  3c_J"0 `   Stayingclearofstatehabeas proceduraldefaults. 󀀀3c_JzJ݌` `  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3c;K"0 ` `   A proceduraldefaultisfoundonlywherethestatecourt  explicitlyreliesonan adequateandindependentstatelaw  ground.SeegenerallyHarrisv.Reed(1989)489U.S.255.An  ordinary postcarddenialofastatehabeaspetition,withoutany  citationsorotherreferencestoprocedurallimitations,is  consideredadecisiononthemeritsandwillfullyexhausta  claim.(So,ifthestatehabeascourtislazyanddeniesthe  petitionwithoutanyexplanationorcitation,thereshouldbeno  difficultyraisingthatclaiminfederalcourt.)3c;KVK݌  Ќ  0 ` 0 ` ` 3c  3cN"0   Note,however,thatifalowerstatecourtdeniesahabeas  petitionona proceduraldefaultground,asubsequent  nocitationspostcarddenialfromtheCaliforniaSupreme  Courtwillnotbedeemedonthemerits.Thefederal   courtwill lookthroughthat silentdenialtoany ! previousstatedecisionstatingreasonsforthedenial.See " Ylstv.Nunnemaker(1991)501U.S.797.3cNN݌#   Ќ  0 ` 3c  3cQ"0 ` `   Theprimarystate proceduraldefaultsarethese:(1)theclaim $  wasraisedandrejectedinapriorappeal(Waltreus);(2)itcould %!! havebeenraisedonappealbutwasnt(Dixon);(3)therewas &"" unreasonabledelayinpresentationoftheclaim(Clark);and(4) '## theclaimwasorshouldhavebeenraisedinaprevioushabeas ($$ petition(alsoClark).SeeInreHarris(1993)5Cal.4th813 )%% (discussingboththeDixonandWaltreusrulesandtheir *&& exceptions);InreClark(1993)5Cal.4th750(discussing +'' unreasonabledelayand successivepetitionbarsandtheir  exceptions).3cQQ݌  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3cTU"0 ` `   Thegoodnews:󀀀TheWaltreusandDixonrulesdontapplyto  IACclaims.AnIACclaimiscognizableinastatehabeas  petitionevenwheretheclaimrestsontheappellaterecordand  couldhavebeenpresentedondirectappeal(orwasraisedand   rejectedonappeal).InreRobbins(1998)18Cal.4th770,814   fn.34.3cTUoU݌   Ќ  0 ` 3c  3cW"0 ` `   ButtheClarkrulesonunreasonablydelayedorsuccessive   petitionsdoapplytoIACclaims.TheCal.SupremeCourthas   promulgatedspecificrulesforassessingthetimelinessofhabeas   petitionsincapitalcases(includinga safeharborprovision   deemingapetitionpresumptivelytimelyiffiledwithin90days   ofthereplybriefondirectappeal).Butthereareno   comparablebenchmarksforapplyingthe unreasonabledelay  principletononcapitalcases(andvirtuallynopublishedcase  lawapplyingClarkinnoncapitalcontexts).Inpractice,  CaliforniaappellatecourtsseldomseemtoinvokeClarkaslong  asthestatehabeaspetitionisfiledduringthebriefingofthe  directappeal.Butsincepostaffirmancehabeasdenialsare  generallyunpublishedminuteorders(andarentservedonthe  appellateprojects),itsnotclearhowoftentheCaliforniacourts  areinvokingtheClark/lachesproceduralbarinnoncapital  cases.NorisitclearwhethertheCaliforniacourtshaveany  consistentviewastohowmuchdelaywillbeconsidered   unreasonableinanoncapitalcase.3cWW݌  Ќ  3c  3c,^"0 `   FederalviewsofCal. proceduraldefaults. 󀀀3c,^G^݌` `  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3c^"0 ` `   FederalcourtswillusuallyrespectaCaliforniaappellateruling   thataclaimwas waivedfordirectappeal,duetoinadequate ! presentationbelow.Californias contemporaneousobjection " requirement(Evid.Code353,etc.)isgenerallyconsideredan #  adequateandindependentgroundfor proceduraldefault $  purposes,especiallywheretherewasnoobjectiontothe %!! evidence,argument,orothereventlaterchallengedonappeal. &"" ЀSee,e.g.,Garrisonv.McCarthy(9thCir.1981)635F.2d374, '## 377;Vansickelv.White(9thCir.1998)166F.3d953,957; ($$ Contrerasv.Rice(C.D.Cal.1998)5F.Supp.2d854,869870.3c^_݌)%%  Ќ  "93"  0 ` 0 ` ` 93b23  0   Theremaybesomecauseforhopeinextremecases.  *&& The9thCir.recentlyfoundno adequateand +'' independentproceduralbarwheretrialcounselhad  persistentlyraisedBrutonobjections,butthestatetrial  andappellatecourtsfoundshehadnotadequately  preservedtheissue.Melendezv.Pliler(9thCir.Apr.24,  2002)__F.3d__,02C.D.O.S.3534.The9thCir.wasnot  convincedthattheCaliforniacourtsconsistentlyapplied   aproceduralbarinsuchsituationsinwhichcounseldid   attempttoraiseobjections..93bEc݌    Ќ  0 ` 3c  3cf"0 ` `   Untilrecently,9thCir.positionwasthatCaliforniasvarious   habeas proceduraldefaultrules(Dixon,Waltreus,Clark)were   not adequateandindependentgroundsanddidnotlimit   federalhabeasreviewatleastwherethestatehabeasdenial   predatedtheCal.SupremeCourtsRobbinsopinion(Inre   Robbins(1998)18Cal.4th770).See,e.g.,Parkv.California   (9thCir.2000)202F.3d1146;Moralesv.Calderon(9thCir.  1996)85F.3d1387.3cff݌  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3cj"0 ` `   Butthe9thCir.hasnowheldthat,sincetherefinementofthose  rulesintheRobbinsopinion(filedAug.3,1998),Californias  Clarkruleonunreasonabledelayisan adequateand  independentgroundforproceduraldefaultpurposes.Bennett  v.Mueller(9thCir.2001)273F.3d895.Moreover,apost  Robbinshabeasdenialreferringtounreasonabledelayorlackof  diligencewillbedeemedaninvocationoftheClarkrule,even  ifitdoesntexpresslyciteClarkorRobbins.3cj-j݌  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3clm"0 ` `   AlthoughBennettconcernedtheClark/unreasonabledelayrule,  muchofBennettsreasoningwouldalsolikelyapplytopost  RobbinshabeasdenialsonDixonandWaltreusgrounds(i.e.,  thattheclaimwasorcouldhavebeenraisedondirectappeal).3clmm݌  Ќ  % q III.0 ` CREATIVEFEDERALIZING(HELPFULGENERAL ! DOCTRINESFORPOSSIBLEFEDERALBASESFORHARD " TOCHARACTERIZECLAIMS).%q]o #` `  0 ` PartIVofthesematerialswilladdresscorrelationsbetweenspecific % ! categoriesofissues(juryinstructions,evidentiaryerror,etc.)and &!" correspondingconstitutionalrightsandcaselaw.But,beforegetting '"# tothatspecificcatalogueofcommonfederalclaims,thissectionwill (#$ notesomegeneralfederalconstitutionalprinciples(includingseveral )$% branchesofdueprocessjurisprudence)whichmayprovide hooksfor *%& federalizinghardtocharacterizeerrors.Appellatecounselshould +&' bearthesedoctrinesinmindwhensomethingiserroneousunderstate  laworlooksgrosslyunfair,butthefederalconstitutionalimplications  arentreadilyapparent.` `  3c  3cs"0 `   Sufficiencyofevidence/dueprocess. Jacksonv.Virginia(1979) o 443  U.S.307.Dontforgetthatstatelawargumentsthatthedefendants   conductdoesntsatisfyallthetechnicalrequirementsforacertain   offensearealsosufficiencyofevidencearguments.(And,ofcourse,   perthe9thCircuitsstrictrequirementofexplicitidentificationofa   claimasafederalone,anysuchargumentmustciteJacksonv.    Virginia,notjust#  o^t#ԀCal.cases(Peoplev.Johnson(1980)26Cal.3d557,   etc.)applyingtheidenticalstandard.)#v#3css݌ ` `  Ќ  3c  3cw"0 `   Fairwarning,retroactivity,andotherdueprocessimplications   ofexpansiveorunforeseenstatutoryconstructions. Seegenerally  Bouiev.CityofColumbia(1964)378U.S.347;Marksv.UnitedStates   (1977)403U.S.188;Douglasv.Bruder(1973)412U.S.430.Ԁ [D]ue   processbarscourtsfromapplyinganovelconstructionofacriminal   statutetoconductthatneitherthestatutenoranypriorjudicialdecision   hasfairlydisclosedtobewithinitsscope[citations].UnitedStates.   v.Lanier(1997)#Qy#Ԁ520U.S.259,266#z#.TheBouiedoctrinehasbarred   retroactiveapplicationofnumerousrecentCaliforniaSupremeCourt   decisionswhichbrokefrompriorcaselawinexpandingthescopeof   criminaloffensesorenhancements(orcurtailingdefenses).E.g.,   Peoplev.Blakeley(2000)23#|#Cal.4thԀ82,91;#|#Ԁ#<}#Peoplev.Martinez(1999)   20#}#Cal.4thԀ225,238241.)ButdontthinkofBouieaslimitedtoissues   ofretroactiveapplicationofotherrecentopinionstoyourcase.Also   considerwhetheryourcaseitselfpresentssuchadueprocessproblem.   ЀThatis,ifthestatesargumentinyourcasewouldrequireasignificant   departurefromthestatutoryandcase#~#lawonthebooksatthetimeof !  theoffense,thenapplicationofsuchanexpandedtheoryofliabilityto "  yourclientscasecouldpresentadueprocessissue.Suchadue #  processargumentisespeciallyaptinanycasewheretheAttorney $  Generalisaskingtheappellatecourttodisagreewithapriorappellate % !! opinion.3cww݌& ""` `  Ќ   ` 3c  3c߁"0   ForU.S.SupremeCourtsmostrecentrefinementofBouie/due ' ## processdoctrine,seeRogersv.Tennessee(2001)532U.S.451. ( $$ (Rogersemphasizesthatthedueprocessanalysisgoverning ) %% retroactivityofjudicialdecisionsisnotidenticaltotheexpost * && factodoctrine,whichislimitedtolegislation.Thedueprocess + '' analysisissomewhatmorenarrowandfocusesonwhetherthere  was fairwarning.)3c߁݌  Ќ  3c  3c"0 `   Itjustisntfair! Fundamentalfairnessis thetouchstoneof  dueprocess. ԀGagnonv.Scarpelli(1973)#`#Ԁ411U.S.778,790;seealso,  e.g.,#ą#ԀUnitedStatesv.Valenzuela-Bernal(1982)458U.S.858,872;   Spencerv.Texas(1967)385U.S.554,563-564Ԁ(&casescitedthere).   Ѐ#Ȇ#Numerousunfairproceduresandeventswhichtodayaresubjectsof   wellestablishedconstitutionalprotections(e.g.,shackling,prejudicial   pretrialpublicity,etc.)receivedjudicialredressonlybecause creative    counselfashionedthosegrievancesintoviabledueprocessclaims,   basedonviolationsof fundamentalfairness.B.` hp x (#XB 3c݌ ` `  Ќ  3c  3ch"0 `   Dueprocesshistoryasaguideto fundamentalfairness. 󀀀Due   processanalysislookstowhetherthechallengedprocedure## offends  someprincipleofjusticesorootedinthetraditionsandconscienceof  ourpeopleastoberankedasfundamental.'[Citation]"Pattersonv.  NewYork(1977)432U.S.197,201202;Medinav.California(1992)##  505U.S.437,445;##Ԁ43. #a#Ourprimaryguideindeterminingwhetherthe  principleinquestionisfundamentalis,ofcourse,historicalpractice.  [Citation]##Montanav.Egelhoff(1996)518U.S.37,##Ԁ4344,emphasis  added.##ԀThiswastheapproachunderlyingthe9thCircuitscasesfinding  dueprocessviolationsintheuseof otheroffensesasevidenceof  criminalpropensity.McKinneyv.Rees(9thCir.1993)993F.2d1378;  seealsoGarceauv.Woodford(9thCir.2001)275F.3d769,775776.##Ԁ  Counselshouldconsiderasimilarhistoricalapproachwhenconfronting  otherdeparturesfromtraditionalcriminalprocedure(e.g.,instructions  reaccomplicetestimony).3ch݌` `  Ќ  3c  3cX"0 `   Dueprocessarbitrarydeprivationofastatecreatedliberty ! interest. Hicksv.Oklahoma(1980)447U.S.343.See,e.g.,Vansickel " v.White(9thCir.1999)166F.3d955(denialofnumberofperemptory # challengesguaranteedbystatestatue);Walkerv.Deeds(9thCir.1995) $  50F.3d670(failuretocomplywithstateprocedurefordetermination %!! of habitualoffenderstatusandpenalty).3cXs݌&""` `  Ќ  3c  3c "0 `    ApprendiIssues! Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466.3c &݌($$` `  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3c"0 ` `   Inthebreadthofitsimplicationsforcriminaltrialsand )%% sentencing,Apprendiispossiblytheonlytrue landmark *&& defensevictorytoemergefromtheRehnquistCourt.Thisisnot +'' anApprendioutline,anditsimpossibleheretoexploreallthe  potentialapplicationsofApprenditoCaliforniacases.Buthere  areafewareastowatchforApprendiissues.3c ݌  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3c|"0 ` `   Obviously,Apprendiisdirectlyapplicabletotheadjudicationof  currentconductsentenceenhancements(GBI,weaponuse,etc.)  whichincreasethesentenceabovethemaximumtermotherwise   allowedfortheunderlyingsubstantiveoffense.3c|݌   Ќ  0 ` 3c  3cV"0 ` `   TheU.S.SupremeCourtiscurrentlyconsideringwhetherthe   sameclusterofcriminaltrialrights(jurytrial,proofbeyonda   reasonabledoubt,charginginaccusatorypleading,etc.)also   applyto mandatoryminimums(whichwouldlikelyentail   overrulingMcMillanv.Pennsylvania(1986)477U.S.79).   Harrisv.UnitedStates,No.0010666{arguedMarch18,   2002}.Notethatthisissueaffectsnotonlyprobationpreclusion   statutesandthelike,butalsostatuteswhichincreasethe  minimumtermsforlifesentences.Foradramaticexampleof  thecurrentanomalousstateofaffairs,seePeoplev.  Sengpadychith(2002)26Cal.4th316(findingthatPen.Code  186.22'sdeterminatesentenceenhancementsimplicatedfederal  constitutionaltrialrights(perApprendi),butthatits  indeterminateenhancingprovisionsdidnot(perMcMillan)).3cVq݌  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3cw"0 ` `   Currentcaselawdrawsasharpdistinctionbetweencurrent  conductenhancementsandpriorconvictionallegations.  CompareApprendiv.NewJerseywithAlmendarezTorresv.  UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224.ButApprendiitselfreveals  thattherearenow5votestooverruleAlmendarezTorres.(See  JusticeThomasconcurringopn.inApprendi.)Despitetaking  upseveralotherApprendiissues,theU.S.SupremeCourthas  notyetgrantedcert.onthecontinuingviabilityofAlmendarez   Torres.Butitmaywelldosowithinthenextyearortwo.So, ! despitethecurrentsecondclassstatusofrecidivist " enhancements,considerraisingApprenditypechallengesinany # caseinwhichadefendantwasdeniedthefullpanoplyof $  criminaltrialrightsonthoseallegations.3cw݌%!!  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3cD"0 ` `   Thesamegoesfordoublejeopardyissuesconcerningprior &"" convictionenhancementsincludingtheprosecutionsabilityto '## retrya strikeorotherenhancementfollowingareversalfor ($$ insufficientevidence.JusticeThomaschangeofheartin )%% ApprendiprovideshopeforreconsiderationofMongev. *&& California(1998)524U.S.721,aswellasAlmendarezTorres.3cD_݌+''  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3cХ"0 ` `   Beyondtraditionalenhancements,whatotherkindsof  determinationsinCaliforniacasesposepossibleApprendi  issues?Findingsthatrequireorallowormultipleindeterminate  terms(e.g.,Pen.Code667.61( onestrike))orfullforce  consecutivedeterminateterms(e.g.,667.6(d))?Whatabout  judicial(ratherthanjury)findingsthatoffensesareseparatefor   654purposes?3cХ݌   Ќ  0 ` 3c  3c"0 ` `   AlsowatchforpossibleApprendiimplicationsanytimethe   statesargumenthingesonputativedifferencesbetween   offensesandmeredeterminationsofthe degreeofanoffense.3c݌   Ќ  3c  3c"0 `    Bushv.GoreEqualProtectionArguments! Bushv.Gore(2000)531   U.S.98.3c݌ ` `  Ќ  0 ` 3c  3c "0 ` `   WhoknowsexactlywhatBushv.Goremeans?Themajority   foundanequalprotectionviolationinFloridaslackof  consistentstandardsfromcountytocountyintheclassification  ofballots.Likevotingrights,thelibertyinterestsatstakein  criminalproceedingsshouldrequireheightenedscrutinyof  arbitraryorinconsistentstatepractices.Whatarethe  implicationsofBushv.Goreforintrastatedifferencesinthe  criminaljusticeprocesse.g.,dramaticdifferencesamong  counties threestrikeschargingpractices,intheavailabilityof  nonprisondispositionsforcertainoffenses,injuryselection  practices?Warning:Imaginationrequired.Bushv.Gore  claimsarenotforthefaintofheart.3c &݌  Ќ  ! ! 7(js0x?956:;<=> % r "93"  932jsIV3  0 `   COMMONISSUECATEGORIESANDCORRESPONDING  FEDERALCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS.%r  93C݌` `  Ќ  Thetablesbelowlistseveralcategoriesofcommonappellateissues(e.g.,jury ! instructions,evidentiaryerror,etc.)andcorrespondingfederalconstitutional " claims.Thisdoesnot,byanymeans,representacomprehensivecatalogueof # alltheopportunitiesfor federalizingtraditionalstatelawclaims. $  Afewcautionarywords:Thecitedcasesareintendedsimplyas startersor &""  entrypointstorelevantfederalcaselawinthefield.Somepointsidentify '## theleadingU.S.SupremeCourtcases.Forothers,wehavesimplylistedone ($$ ormorehandyexamplesoffederalcircuitcases.Also,wherepossible,we )%% havetriedtonoteseveralpossiblefederalconstitutionalrights(e.g.,due *&& process&6thAmen.fairjurytrial),butthecitedcasemayonlydiscussoneof +'' thosepossiblebases.  {Portionsofthissection(includingmanyoftheexamplesofevidentiaryerror  andprosecutorialmisconduct)havebeenadaptedandupdatedfrommaterials  originallypreparedbyFDAPStaffAttorneyJonathanSoglinfora1999FDAP  seminar.}   "5;"  5;0 ` 2js  A  .3  0 ` `   JuryInstructions 5;݌   Ќ  Mostpotentialfederalconstitutionalclaimsinvolvingjuryinstructionsrest    uponacombinationofthe righttojurytrial (6thAmen.)and dueprocess (5th   &14thAmends.)Thefederalconstitutionalmagnitudeofaninstructional   defectismostclearwhereitconcernstheelementsoftheoffense,thetheories   ofcriminalliability,ordefensetheoriessuchasaffirmativedefensesandlesser   includedoffenses.  *A[Brddd Xdd Xdd X  ,m dd ,hdd +  +' +Error .   =',!f' =FederalClaim -#!f' - Errorsandomissionsin  elementsoftheoffenseor  theoriesofliability.   Ѐ_ Neder_ Ԁv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1#8#;  UnitedStatesv._ Gaudin_ (1995)515U.S.506##.    Othererrorsthatremove 6 elementsfromthejury, 4  includinginstructionsor 2 judicialcommentsthata 2 particularelementis 2 established asamatterof 2 law.  2  ЀPowellv._ Galaza_ (9thCir.2002)##Ԁ282F.3d 6 1089##Ԁ(judgescommentthatdefendants 6  testimonyestablishedanelementofoffense 6! tantamounttoadirectedverdictor 6"  mandatorypresumption).#r#Ԁ  6#  Submissionofunauthorized !$ theoriesofliability (e.g., "% improperpredicateoffensefor #& felonymurderliability).  $ ' E.g.,_ Suniga_ Ԁv._ Bunnell_ V(9thCir.1993)998 !( F.2d664#V#;Keatingv.Hood(9thCir.1999) ") 191F.3d1053#M#.   #*  Errorsinthedefinitionofthe d  reasonabledoubtstandard  b orotherinstructionsthatdilute ` the reasonabledoubt ` requirement.   ` Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275##. d Notethatmanyofthecurrentissues d concerningtheCALJIC otheroffenses d instructions(CALJIC2.50.01)comewithin d  thiscategory.See,e.g.,Peoplev.Reilford  d  (2001)Ԁ93Cal.App.4th973,reviewgranted  d   Feb.13,2002(S103084#p#).# #   d   Improper presumptions     andothererrorsthatrelaxthe   prosecutionsburdento   establisheachelementbeyond   areasonabledoubt.    Yatesv.Evatt(1991)500U.S.391#t#.     Erroneousomissionoflesser :  includedoffenseinstructions 8 ormisstatementofthe 6 groundsforlesseroffenses: 4  2possibletheoriesforerrors 2 concerninglesseroffense 2 instructions: 2  Lesseroffensetheory(1) 󄄀as 2 denialofadequateinstructions 6 onelementsofcharged 6 offense.  6 (1)Failuretoinstructonagroundthat :  negatesmaliceorsomeotherelementofthe : chargedoffense  (e.g.,heatofpassionor :  imperfectselfdefense)  Mullaneyv.Wilbur >! (1975)421U.S.684.SeeJusticeKennards B" dissentinPeoplev.Breverman(1998)19 B# Cal.4th142#m#,discussingapplicabilityof B$ Mullaneytoomissionofheatofpassion B% instructions.NotethattheBreverman B& majoritydidnotreachtheMullaneyissue B' (becauseitwasntraisedinthebriefs),sothe B( Brevermanmaj.opn.doesnotbaraCal. B) appellatecourtfromconsideringthisissue.  B*  Lesseroffensetheory(2) 󄄀as &+ denialofinstructionson  *, defensetheory.  !*- (2) Denialofinstructionsonthe defense &. theoryofthecase. Condev.Henry(9thCir.  */ 1999)VԀ198F.3d734#V#Ԁ(holdingthatrefusalof !.0 instructionsonsimplekidnapaslesser ".1 offenseofkidnapforrobberyviolated well #.2 establishedrighttoinstructionsondefense $. 3 theoryofcase,wheredefensechallenged %.!4 sufficiencyofevidencetosatisfyelementsof &."5 robbery).  '.#6  Denialofinstructionson d affirmativedefenses (e.g., b selfdefense)ormisstatement f  ofthosedefenses.  f ЀAlsoaviolationoftherighttoadequate d instructionsonthe defensetheoryofthe d case.Mathewsv.UnitedStates485U.S.58#3#; d e.g.,Barkerv.Yukins(6thCir.1999)199 d F.3d867##.   d   Other defensetheories?     Arguably,therighttoinstructionsonthe     defensetheoryofthecaseisnotrestricted    toformal affirmativedefenses,butalso    appliestootherkindsof defensetheories,   likethirdpartyculpability,alibi,etc.Butsee   Duckettv.Godinez(9thCir.1995)67F.3d   734(though9thCir.requiresspecificalibi   instructionsinfederalcriminaltrials,denial   ofalibiinstructioninstatetrialdidntviolate   dueprocess,whereoverallinstructions  adequatelycommunicatedprosecutionsduty  toprovedefendantspresenceatthescene).    Instructionson other < offensesevidence.  : Dueprocess.SeeGarceauv.Woodford(9th < Cir.2001)275F.3d769,775776. < (instructionsallowinguseof otheroffenses < evidenceasproofofcriminalpropensity < violateddueprocess). <   "5;"  5;f0  2js  B  .3  0m     EvidentiaryErrors 5;f݌lm m  Ќ  *x}[~rd rdm dd m hdd hA[B  x,m dd ,hdd +  +'j j +Error .   =',!!' =FederalClaim -#!"' - admissionofhearsay not `!# satisfyingawellestablished d"$ hearsayexception  d#% Confrontationclause.Idahov.Wright `!& (1990)497U.S.805##  `"'  limitsoncrossexamination ; $H ( exclusionofimpeachment %L!) evidence  &L"* ConfrontationclauseDelawarev.VanArsdell $H + (1986)475U.S.673;Oldenv. %H!, Kentucky(1988)488U.S.227.  &H"-  otheroffensesanduncharged (#. misconduct  )$/ Dueprocess/fundamentalfairness.McKinney (#0 v.Rees(9thCir.1993)993F.2d1378.  )$1  exclusionofdefenseevidence d   b Dueprocessrighttoputonadefenseand/or d 6thAmen.righttocompulsoryprocess. d Chambersv.Mississippi(1973)410U.S.284, d 302303B  ԍ(applicationofstaterulesbarringhearsayandcrossexaminationofpartysownwitnessviolateddefendantsrightstodueprocessandafairtrial)C  ;Washingtonv.Texas(1967)388 d U.S.14,23B  ԍ(localrulingbarringdefendantfromcallingaccompliceviolateddefendantsSixthAmendmentrighttocompulsoryprocessforobtainingwitnesses)C  ;Cranev.Kentucky(1986)476  d U.S.683##.  d     m  "5;"  5;0  2js  C  .3  0m     Confessions5;݌D  m m  Ќ  *xX[Yrdrdm dd m hdd h}[~  x,m dd ,hdd +  +'@ @  +Error .   =',! ' =FederalClaim -#! ' -Traditional Miranda issues.  6  5thAmen.selfincriminationpriv.See 6  Dickersonv.UnitedStates(2000)530U.S. 6  428##Ԁ(reaffirmingMiranda).  6   Otherinterrogationissues:  Massiah (interrogationafter  righttocounselhasattached).   6thAmen.righttocounsel.Massiahv.United  States(1964)377U.S.201    Otherinterrogationissues: \ jailhouseconfessions topolice Z agents.  ^ 6thAmen.righttocounsel(anotherbranchof \ Massiahrule).E.g.,Mainev.Moulton(1985) \ 474U.S.159.  \  Otherinterrogationissues: B voluntarinessofdefendants @ statement (incl.promisesof > leniency,threats,etc.)  B  Dueprocess.E.g.,Arizonav.Fulminante B! (1991)499U.S.279.  B"  Voluntarinessofanother # witnessevidence.   $ Dueprocess.E.g.,Peoplev.Lee(2002)95 % Cal.App.4th772.Thoughadefendantlacks  & standingtoassertaviolationofathirdpartys !' 5thAmen.rights,heisentitledtochallenge "( theadmissionofaanotherpersons #) involuntarystatementondueprocessgrounds $* duetotheinherentunreliabilityofcoerced % + evidence(Butstandardsarenotidentical; &!, seegenerallyPeoplev.BadgettԀ(1995)10 '"- Cal.4th330##.)  (#.  Confessionsandother d inculpatorystatementsofco b  defendants &otherco ` principals.  d 6thAmen.confrontation.Brutonv.United d States󀀀(1968)#B#Ԁ391U.S.123##;see,e.g.,Gray d v.Maryland(1998)523U.S.185[redaction d insufficientwhereblanksorneutralpronouns d willletjurorsinferthatreferencesaretothe  d  otherdefendant];Lillyv.Virginia(1999)527  d  U.S.116[admissionofcoprincipals  d  inculpatorystatementas declarationagainst  d  penalinterestviolatedconfrontationclause].  d    "5;"  5;0  2js  D  .3  0m     ProsecutorialMisconduct 5;K݌B m m  Ќ  *x[drdm dd m hdd hX[Y  x_ , dd , dd +  +'@ @  +Error =',! ' =FederalClaim -#! ' - Commentondefendantsfailure 6 totestify  4 5thAmen.priv.againstself 6 incrimination.Griffinv.California 6 (1965)380U.S.609  6  Commentondefendantspost  arrestpostMirandasilence   Dueprocess.Doylev.Ohio(1976)  426U.S.610.    UseofadefendantspreMiranda ^ silence inprosecutioncaseinchief  \ ##5thAmen.priv.againstself ^ incrimination.##ԀUnitedStatesv.## ^ VelardeGomez(9thCir.2001)269 ^  F.3d1023;##ԀUnitedStatesv. ^! Whitehead(9thCir.2000)200F.3d ^" 634.B.` hp x (#XB##  ^#  Statingfactsnotinevidence (in B$ closingargumentorinformof  F% questionstowitness)  !F& 6thAmen.confrontation.Douglas B' v.Alabama(1965)380U.S.415##;  B( Hardnettv.Marshall(9thCir.1994) !B) 25F.3d875;Peoplev.Bell(1989) "B* 49Cal.3d502<( ` hp x X<;##ԀPeoplev.Gaines #B+ (1997)54Cal.App.4th821Ԁ  XPeople $B , v.Blackington(1985)167 %B!- Cal.App.3d1216#^#.  &B".  Vouching forcredibilityofwitness##  d Dueprocessand/or6thAmen. d confrontation.##_ Lambright_ Ԁv. d Stewart(9thCir.2000)220F.3d d 1022,1029;UnitedStatesv.Young d  (1985)470U.S.1,1819.   d Appealsto racial,ethnicor   religiousprejudices    Equalprotection&dueprocess.    _ McCleskey_ Ԁv.Kemp(1987)#-#481    U.S.279,309n.30;_ Bains_ Ԁv.    _ Cambra_ (9thCir.2000)#X#Ԁ204F.3d    964,974975;B.` hp x (# B#M#Peoplev.Ԁ_ Cudjo_    # #(1993)6Cal.4th585,625626.     Disparaging defendantsexercise <  of righttocounsel ##Ԁordefense @  counselsfunction.  D 6thAmend.righttocounsel;due <  process.#U#ԀUnitedStatesv._ Kallin_  <  (9thCir.1995)50F.3d689;; < Peoplev._ Crandell_ (1988)46 < Cal.3d833,878.  <  Misleadingprosecutorial   argument ,(e.g.,commentingon  absenceofdefenseevidenceona " point,whereprosecutionobjections " orothertacticspreventeddefense " fromintroducingsuchevidence).  " Dueprocess.# #VUnitedStatesv.   _ Kojayan_ (9thCir.1993)8F.3d   1315#V#.     Contradictoryprosecution f  factualtheories incodefendants d! separatetrials(e.g.,which h" defendantfiredgun).  h # Dueprocess.##Smithv._ Groose_ (8th f$ Cir.2000)205F.3d1045;cf. f% Peoplev._ Sakarias_ (2000)22 f& Cal.4th596[discussingbutnot f ' resolving].  f!( Other inflammatoryorpervasive "J) prosecutiontactics ,not #N* implicatingspecificconstitutional %R + rights.E.g.,appealstopassionor &R!, prejudice,dangertothecommunity 'R"- orcommunityreactions,name (R#. calling(includingcomparing )R$/ defendanttoinfamousfigures),etc.  *R%0 Dueprocess.##_ Donnelly_ Ԁv. "J1 _ DeChristoforo_ (1974)416U.S.637 #J2 (testiswhethermisconduct $J 3  #q #infectedthetrialwithunfairnessas %J!4 tomaketheresultingconvictiona &J"5 denialofdueprocess").  'J#6  Prosecutorialnondisclosureof d  exculpatoryevidence ,including b impeachmentinformationre f prosecutionwitnesses.  f Dueprocess.Bradyv.Maryland d (1963)373U.S.83# #;_ Kyles_ Ԁv. d Whitley(1995)514U.S.419# #; d UnitedStatesv._ Bagley_ (1985)473 d U.S.667# #.   d   Falsetestimony.     #e#Dueprocess.##ԀUnitedStatesv.    _ Agurs_ (1976)427U.S.97    (presentationoftestimony    prosecutorkneworshouldhave   knownwasfalse);e.g.,Peoplev.   _ Kasim_ Ԁ(1997)56_ Cal.App_ .4th1360.     ##Intimidationofdefensewitnesses  <  (e.g.,threatsofperjuryprosecution :  ifwitnesstestifiesfordefense).  : ##Dueprocess&6thAmen.rightto <  compulsoryprocessE.g.,Inre <  Martin(1987)44Cal.3d1;United < Statesv._ Vavages_ (9thCir.1998) < 151F.3d1185. < ##  "5;"  5;0  2js  E  .3  0m     DefenseCounsel 5;݌lm m  Ќ    Allthecounselrelatedclaimslistedbelowderivefromthe6thAmen. j righttocounsel,unlessotherwiseindicated. j *xd[edd dd dd [  x, dd , dd +  +'jj +Error =',!' =FederalClaim -#! ' - Ineffectiveassistanceoftrial `! counsel.  ^" #!#_ Strickland_ v.Washington(1984) `# 466U.S.668.  `$  Ineffectiveassistanceofappellate  D% counsel.  !B& Dueprocess._ Evitts_ Ԁv._ Lucey_ (1985)  D' 469U.S.387##.  !D(  Denialorabsenceofcounsel ata #) criticalstageoftheproceedings; $* constructivedenialofcounsel.  % + ##VUnitedStatesv._ Cronic_ (1984)466 #, U.S.648#V#;e.g.,#}#VPeoplev.Horton $- (1995)11Cal.4th1068#V#Ԁ#J#VDelgadov. % . Lewis(9thCir.2000)223F.3d976#V# &!/ (denialofcounselwhereattorney '"0 forcodefendantwithdivergent (#1 intereststoodinfordefendants )$2 ownattorneyatcriticalstage).  *%3 Counsels conflictofinterest.  d  ##V_ Cuyler_ Ԁv.Sullivan(1980)446U.S. d 335#V#;#:#VHollowayv.Arkansas(1978) d 435U.S.475#V#;##V_ Mickens_ Ԁv.Taylor d (2002)535U.S.___[122S.Ct. d 1237].#VI#   d  _ Marsden_  error!inadequateinquiry   bycourtorabuseofdiscretionre   defendantsmotiontoreplace    appointedcounsel.     Besuretoidentify_ Marsden_ erroras    aformof6thAmen.violation.󀀀See    Peoplev._ Marsden_ (1970)2Cal.3d    118# #,123126;seealso_ Schell_ Ԁv.   _ Witek_ (9thCir.2000)218F.3d   1017#_"#Ԁ(enbanc)(6thAmen.basisfor   _ Marsden_ likerules).     Denialofancillaryservices to <  appointedcounsel#P## (experts, @ investigators,etc.).  D Dueprocess._ Ake_ Ԁv.Oklahoma <  (1985)470U.S.68.(Though_ Ake_  < restsondueprocess,denialof < necessaryancillaryservicesalso < implicates6thAmen.rightto < counsel.See_ Corenevsky_ Ԁv. < SuperiorCourt(1984)36#i$#Cal.3d < 307.#&#  <  Denialofancillaryservicesto   pro.per.defendant #'#Ԁ(investigator,  processserver,libraryaccess,etc.).  " Dueprocess.#'#Miltonv.Morris(9th    Cir.1985)767F.2d1443.   ! Other selfrepresentationissues  f" (incl.erroneousdenialof_ Faretta_  j# motion;inadequatewarningsre j $ hazardsofselfrepresentation; j!% erroneousfailuretorelievea j"& defendantofpro.per.status& j#' reappointcounsel,etc.).  j$( #(#_ Faretta_ Ԁv.California(1975)#*#422 f) U.S.806;e.g,UnitedStatesv. f* Mohawk(9thCir.1994)20F.3d f + 1480#-+#Ԁ[inadequaterecordtoestablish f!, knowing&voluntarywaiverof f"- counsel];#+#ԀSnookv.Wood(9thCir. f#. 1996)89F.3d605[inadequate f$/ warnings];#,#_ Menefield_ v.Borg(9th f% 0 Cir.1989)881F.2d696#i-#Ԁ[erroneous f&!1 refusalofreappointmentof f'"2 counselforposttrialhearings].B.` hp x (#XB#.# f(#3  #/# "5;"  5;u/0  2js  F  .3  0m     JurySelection&Misconduct 5;u//݌+&5m m  Ќ  ݀  *xE[Fd d dd dd d[e  x, dd , dd +  +' +Error =',!d' =FederalClaim -#!d' -Discriminatoryuseof peremptory  challenges (state Wheeler error).   Equalprotection._ Batson_ Ԁv.  Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79#q0#.#"3#    Denialofadequatevoirdire on B  possiblejurorbias.  F   6thAmen.jurytrial&dueprocess. B   _ Mu'Min_ Ԁv.Virginia(1991)500U.S. B   415;#4#Hamv.SouthCarolina(1973) B   409U.S.524;#4#e.g.,Peoplev. B   _ Wilborn_ (1999)70_ Cal.App_ .4th339 B  [racialbias];Gardnerv.Barnett B  (7thCir.1999)175F.3d580 B  [disallowanceofvoirdirere B  _ presdispositions_ Ԁaboutgangs].  B   Denialofperemptorychallenges  & guaranteedbystatelaw.  $ Dueprocess/denialofstatecreated & libertyinterest._ Vansickel_ Ԁv.White & (9thCir.1999)166F.3d955  &  Jurorbias&concealmentofbias  j onvoirdire.  h 6thAmen.jurytrial&dueprocess. j Dyerv._ Calderon_ (9thCir.1998) j 151F.3d970(enbanc);Greenv. j White(9thCir.2000)232F.3d671.  j Other prejudicialeventsduring N voirdire.  R 6thAmen.jurytrial,confrontation, N  &dueprocess.E.g.Machv. N! Stewart(9thCir.1998)137F.3d630 N" [ expertsoundingstatementof N# excusedprospectivejuror(asocial N$ worker)thatchildrenneverlie  N% aboutasexualassaultcharge;so !N& intrinsicallyprejudicialasto "N' compelamistrial].  #N(  Jurorbias!racialbias during % ) deliberations.  &!* Equalprotection._ McCleskey_ Ԁv. % + Kemp(1987)#X<#481U.S.279,#<#292. &!, (Also6thAmen.fairjurytrial&due '"- process.)  (#.  Jurormisconduct,exposingother d jurorstomattersnotinevidence  b  (e.g.,defendantspriorcriminal ` record).  ` 6thAmen.jurytrial&confrontation. d _ Jeffries_ Ԁv.Wood(9thCir.1997)#>#Ԁ114 d F.3d1484,1490.#\?#Lawsonv.Borg d (9thCir.1995)#?#Ԁ60F.3d608,612.#A@#B.` hp x (#XB  d  Misconductofcourtpersonnel     (bailiffs,sheriffs,clerks,etc.)    exposingjurorstomattersoutside    therecord.     6thAmen.fairjurytrial,counsel,    confrontation&dueprocess.E.g.   _ Dickson_ Ԁv.Sullivan(9thCir.1988)   849F.2d403.    Othererrorsresultingin jurors <  receiptofinformationoutsidethe @  record .E.g.,deliveryof >  _ unadmitted_ Ԁexhibits,tapes,etc.,into B  juryroom.  B  6thAmen.confrontation.E.g., <  _ Eslaminia_ v.White(9thCir.1998) <  136F.3d1234;UnitedStatesv. <  _ Noushfar_ (9thCir.1996)78F.3d <  1442. <   "5;"  5;)E0  2js  G  .3  0m     OtherFairTrialIssues 5;)EVE݌rm m  Ќ  *xG[Hd d dd dd E[F  x, dd , dd +  +'pp +Error =',!$' =FederalClaim -#!$' - Competency tostandtrial# F#(Pen. f  CodeԀ1368,etc.).  j! # H#Dueprocess.Patev.Robinson f" (1966)383U.S.375;#oH#Cooperv. f# Oklahoma(1996)517U.S.348#H#B.` hp x (#XB.  f$  Presenceofdefendant atcritical J% stagesoftrial.  N& #I#6thAmen.confrontation&due J' process.ԀSee,e.g.,UnitedStatesv. J( RosalesRodriguez(9thCir.May8, J) 2002)__F.3d__,02_ C.D.O.S._  J* 3928(&priorcasesdiscussed J+ there);seegenerally#J#Kentuckyv.  J, _ Stincer_ (1987)482U.S.730.  !J-  Severance/joinder: improper #. joinderof counts .  $/ Dueprocess.E..g.,Beanv. #0 _ Calderon_ #sL#Ԁ(9thCir.1998)163F.3d $1 1073[prejudicialjoinderof2 % 2 murdercounts;murderswerent &!3 crossadmissible,andstronger '"4 countbolsteredtheweakerone].  (#5  Severance/joinder :improper d joinderof#N# codefendants.  h Dueprocessand/or6thAmen. d confrontation.E.g.,V 2 XUnitedStatesv. d  _ Mayfield_ (9thCir.1999)189F.3d d 895#VO#;VPeoplev._ Estrada_ (1998)63 d _ Cal.App_ .4th1090#VP#Ԁ(prejudicialerror  d fromtacticsofcodefendants  d counsel,incl.presentationof  d  inadmissibleevidence).   d   Lackofnotice ofprosecution    theory&other ambushtactics    6thAmen.&dueprocessrightsto    noticeofcharges._ Sheppard_ Ԁv.Rees   (9thCir.1990)909F.2d1234.     Otherprejudicialeventsin <  courtroom !portrayalof defendant  :  (shackling,jailclothes,viewing > defendantincustody,etc.  > Dueprocess.E.g.,Spainv._ Rushen_  <  (9thCir.1989)883F.2d712; <  Estellev.Williams(1976)425U.S. < 501.#T#  <  Otherprejudicialeventsin " courtroom !outbursts,press&   spectatorconduct,etc.  $ ЀDueprocessand/or6thAmen.fair " trial&confrontation.E.g.,Norris " v._ Risley_ (9thCir.1990)918F.2d " 828[spectatorswearingprominent "  WomanAgainstRapebuttons]. "   "5;"  B.` hp x (#2 B5;SW0  2js  H  .3  0m     AppellateProcessIssues. 5;SWW݌R m m  Ќ  *xg[hdd dd dd G[H  x, dd , dd +  +'P"P +Error =',!d#' =FederalClaim -#!d$' - Denialofappointedcounsel on F% directappealorineffective  J& assistanceofappellatecounsel.#X#  !J' #Z#Dueprocess&equalprotection. F( #[#Douglasv.California(1963)372  F) U.S.353Ԁ#[#_ Evitts_ Ԁv._ Lucey_ (1985)469 !F* U.S.387#"\#.#\#  "F+  Denialofadequaterecord for $, appellatereview.  % - Dueprocess,equalprotection,& $. effectiveassistanceappellate % / counsel._ Enstminger_ v.Iowa &!0 (1967)386U.S.748;Peoplev. '"1 Barton(1978)21Cal.3d513,518.  (#2  Denialofadequaterecordfor d _ Batson_ claims. SeePeoplev. b  Landry(1996)47_ Cal.App_ .4th785 f (denyingaugmentation,basedon f Cal.SupremeCourtopinions  f disapprovingcomparisonsbetween  f challengedandunchallenged  f jurors).   f Becausefederalopinionsregarding d  jurorscomparisonsasvitalto d  _ Batson_ review(e.g.,Turnerv. d  Marshall(9thCir.1997)121F.3d d  1248),augmentationdenialslike  d  theoneinLandryimplicatefederal  d constitutionalrightstoadequate  d appellaterecord(_ Enstminger_ Ԁv.  d Iowa,supra)andeffective  d assistanceofappellatecounsel d  (_ Evitts_ Ԁv._ Lucey_ #1c#). d