United States Ninth Circuit

The district court's denial of a petitioner's habeas corpus petition challenging his murder convictions and capital sentence is affirmed, where: 1) petitioner failed to show prejudice as to his claims that trial counsel was ineffective; 2) the state court was not unreasonable in concluding that petitioner was competent to stand trial and waive fundamental rights; 3) the trial court's limitation of petitioner's cross-examination of a witness did not violate the Confrontation Clause and was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law because the excluded topics of cross-examination likely would not have affected the jury’s impression of the witness' credibility; 4) the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing; and 5) there was no cumulative error.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/06/2013
• Published 08/06/2013

Judges

• THOMAS

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel