Alan Gimenez v. J. Ochoa
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8511
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Alan Gimenez was convicted in California of second-degree murder for the 7-week-old death of his daughter, Priscilla; prosecution argued she died from shaken baby syndrome (SBS) based on subdural hematoma, brain swelling, retinal hemorrhages, and a rib fracture.
- Defense presented an alternative theory: traumatic birth, chronic (rebleeding) subdural hemorrhage, congenital conditions, and an iatrogenic rib fracture; experts disagreed on timing and cause of injuries.
- Gimenez previously filed a federal habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance for failing to obtain full medical records and adequately use experts; that petition was denied and affirmed on appeal.
- He filed a second (successive) federal habeas petition raising: (1) renewed ineffective-assistance claims about expert selection and investigation, (2) a due process claim that prosecution expert testimony was false, and (3) a claim that subsequent scientific developments undermine SBS evidence and support actual innocence.
- The district court dismissed the second petition; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding most ineffective-assistance claims repetitive and rejecting the false-testimony and science-change claims under the stringent standards for successive petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gimenez) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Successive ineffective-assistance claim | Counsel failed to subpoena complete records, hire/prepare adequate experts, and thus was ineffective | Claims repeat prior habeas allegations; barred as successive because they share the same legal basis already adjudicated | Denied — claims are successive/repetitious and previously adjudicated |
| Due process — false expert testimony | Prosecution experts misinterpreted records and offered false testimony undermining conviction | New expert affidavits mainly disagree with prosecution or repeat prior defense positions; differences are opinions, not proven falsehoods | Denied — no clear-and-convincing proof of false testimony constituting constitutional error |
| Changed science — discredited SBS triad theory | New scientific literature shows triad alone no longer reliably diagnoses SBS; thus testimony infected trial and shows actual innocence | Scientific debate does not equate to repudiation; even if triad is questioned, other trial evidence could support conviction | Denied — petitioner failed to show that, absent the expert testimony, no reasonable juror would find guilt |
| Freestanding actual-innocence claim | New evidence (medical records, expert affidavits) establishes probable innocence | Freestanding innocence claims are extremely narrow; petitioner must affirmatively prove probable innocence | Denied — evidence does not meet the demanding standard for freestanding actual-innocence relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (same-claim/successiveness principle for successive petitions)
- Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (state presentation of claim and exhaustion; substance controls)
- Babbitt v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744 (same gravamen/duplicative-claim doctrine)
- Gulbrandson v. Ryan, 738 F.3d 976 (reiterating successive-claim bar when basic thrust is identical)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (due process challenge to admission of evidence and fundamental fairness)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (actual-innocence gateway standard for habeas review)
- Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (limits on freestanding actual-innocence claims)
- Lee v. Houtzdale SCI, 798 F.3d 159 (recognizing habeas relief where later science undermines forensic evidence if trial was infected with constitutional error)