United States Ninth Circuit

In a second petition action for writ of habeas corpus relief from conviction of second degree murder of petitioner's infant daughter, based on the prosecution’s theory that his daughter was a victim of shaken baby syndrome, the district court's denial of petition is affirmed where: 1) the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which concerns errors primarily related to the use of expert testimony, is barred as successive because his arguments don't present a claim for relief that is distinct from the claim raised in his first petition; and 2) petitioner can't obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. section 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) on the theory that the prosecution introduced false testimony by incorrectly interpreting key hospital records in violation of his due process rights, because petitioner simply presents a battle between experts who have different opinions about how his daughter died.

Appellate Information

• Published 2016/05/09

Judges

• KOZINSKI

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel