United States Ninth Circuit

In a capital habeas matter, the denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) there is no reasonable likelihood that certain false testimony could have changed the jury's verdict or that the cumulative impact of the false testimony and undisclosed Brady material would have changed the jury's verdict; 2) although counsel's investigation regarding mitigation evidence could have been initiated earlier, petitioner did not show that counsel's timetable was per se constitutionally deficient under professional norms existing in 1980; and 3) the additional mitigation evidence that might have been uncovered was not compelling when weighed against the case in aggravation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/08/2010
• Published 09/08/2010

Judges

• Per Curiam

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Geoffrey Rotwein, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.