United States Ninth Circuit

In a capital habeas matter, the denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) the Japanese prison conditions did not overcome petitioner's will and render his confession involuntary; 2) there was nothing in the record to suggest any additional physical or psychological coercion accompanied petitioner's admissions in Hawaii; 3) any alleged deficiencies in counsel's representation were justified by the reasonable strategic decision to investigate a defense consistent with petitioner's extrajudicial statements; and 4) because certain harmful sexual deviancy evidence would have been admitted in the penalty phase had counsel taken petitioner's proposed path and since the jury must have relied heavily on the gruesome facts of the crime despite the "substantial" mitigation case, the court's "confidence in the outcome" was not undermined by petitioner's counsel's alleged deficiencies.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/09/2009
• Decided 06/07/2010
• Published 06/07/2010

Judges

• Before DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• J. Frank McCabe, San Francisco, CA, and Neoma D. Kenwood, Berkeley, CA, filed the briefs and argued the cause for the petitioner-appellant-cross-appellee., Alice B. Lustre, Deputy Att'y General of California, argued the cause and filed the brief for the respondent-appellee-cross-appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General of California, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General of California, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General of California, and Glenn R. Pruden, Deputy Attorney General of California also were on the brief.