United States Ninth Circuit

District court's denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus of a defendant, convicted for murder and sentenced to death, is affirmed where: 1) The Arizona courts' denial of defendant's Brady claim was not an unreasonable application of or contrary to clearly established law; 2) the Arizona Supreme Court's holding that trial counsel was not deficient was not an unreasonable application of the standard established in Strickland v. Washington; 3) there is no evidence that the sentencing court would have balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors differently had the defendants been afforded separate sentencing proceedings; and 4) the Arizona Supreme Court's determination that the prosecutor's comments, while improper, did not violate dur process was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/18/2012
• Published 07/18/2012

Judges

• Wardlaw

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel