United States Ninth Circuit

In a capital habeas matter, denial of petitioner's petition is affirmed where: 1) no Brady violation could occur when a defendant possessed the information that he claims was withheld; 2) petitioner offered no support for his assertion that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing on the Brady claim; and 3) it was not reasonably likely that a challenged instruction, in context of the instructions overall, caused the jury to misapply the state's burden of proof.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/03/2010
• Decided 03/08/2010
• Published 03/08/2010

Judges

• Before PAMELA ANN RYMER, RONALD M. GOULD and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Oliver W. Loewy, Federal Defender Services of Idaho, Moscow, ID; Dennis A. Benjamin, Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, Boise, ID, for the petitioner-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• L. LaMont Anderson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, ID, for the respondent-appellee.