United States Ninth Circuit

In a capital habeas matter, the denial of petitioner's habeas petition is affirmed where: 1) petitioner was not prejudiced by the trial court's decision to shackle him during the guilt phase of the trial; 2) counsel's thorough mitigation investigation was more than reasonable; 3) further evidence about petitioner's childhood and gang activity would have suggested violent propensities at odds with counsel's goal of portraying petitioner as less culpable; and 4) the proposed additional evidence was mostly cumulative of the information already presented at the penalty phase trial.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/05/2009
• Decided 12/10/2009
• Published 12/10/2009

Judges

• Before:  HARRY PREGERSON, SUSAN P. GRABER, and KIM McLANE WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Jeannie R. Sternberg, Habeas Corpus Resource Center, San Francisco, CA, for the petitioner-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Jamie L. Fuster, Deputy Attorney General, State of California, Los Angeles, CA, for the respondent-appellee.