United States Ninth Circuit

The district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's second-degree murder conviction is affirmed, where: 1) an improper comment by the prosecutor did not materially affect the fairness of the proceedings because the trial court sustained the defendant's objection, and the trial court instructed the jury that statements made by the attorneys during trial are not evidence; 2) there was a sufficient basis for the prosecutor's statements about witness inconsistencies and his implication that the witnesses had coordinated their testimony; 3) the prosecutor's statements describing "reasonable doubt" as "something that makes you comfortable with your decision today," and suggesting that jurors would "be very uncomfortable" explaining to neighbors if "we walked him," were improper, but the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial because there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict without the prosecutorial misstatements; 4) defendant's counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial statements that the defendant had removed his shirt, and counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor's statements about gang connections did not prejudice the defense; and 5) the exclusion of an uncorroborated witness statement that might have supported defendant's self-defense theory did not violate due process.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/16/2014
• Published 06/16/2014

Judges

• WALLACE

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel