United States Ninth Circuit

District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his conviction for robbery and assault-related crimes is affirmed, as the Washington Supreme Court's decision that the trial court's prohibition of the defense counsel from arguing during the closing argument both that the State failed to meet its burden of proof establishing accomplice liability and that defendant acted under duress, did not constitute structural error was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. Further, the record demonstrates that defendant was afforded the opportunity to present his defense of duress and the State was not relieved of its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/22/2012
• Published 08/22/2012

Judges

• Tallman

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel