Albert Cunningham v. Robert Wong
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 451
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Cunningham, sentenced to death for robbery/murder in California (1988), challenges guilt and penalty-phase decisions via §2254 petition.
- Trial evidence shows Treto murdered during robbery; Cebreros survived, identified Cunningham; Treto’s car later found stripped in Compton.
- Guilt phase: defense apportioned through several mitigating witnesses; prosecution introduced extensive aggravation evidence, including prior violent offenses.
- Penalty phase: defense presented mitigating testimony; prosecution highlighted violent history and lack of remorse; jury sentenced Cunningham to death.
- California Supreme Court denied state habeas relief; Cunningham filed federal petition in 2004; district court denied in 2009.
- This court reviews under AEDPA de novo for legal questions with deferential standard to state-court factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady suppression claim | Cunningham argues Wondries suppressed records. | State argues records were available; no suppression. | No Brady violation; records were effectively accessible and not suppressed. |
| Changed appearance evidence (prosecutor's arguments) | Appeal procedurally barred; improper emphasis on appearance. | Strategic prosecutorial framing within permissible scope. | No reversible error; not a constitutional violation under Strickland framework. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (guilt phase) | Failure to present medical/autopsy records and alibi evidence prejudiced defense. | Evidence would have been cumulative or non-prejudicial. | California Supreme Court reasonably denied; no prejudice shown. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (penalty phase, Vicary testimony) | Dr. Vicary's testimony would provide critical mitigating mental-health insight. | Vicary testimony would be duplicative or cause harmful rebuttal; not prejudicial. | District court erred; Vicary testimony could have changed at least one juror's vote; prejudice shown; remand for relief under Strickland. |
| Miranda/Edwards violation and harmlessness | Baroni’s interview violated Miranda and tainted trial. | Any violation was harmless in light of the record. | Harmless error; no reversal; cumulative impact insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (federal duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged standard for ineffective assistance)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (deference and unreasonable application standard for habeas review)
- Pinholster v. Cullen, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (AEDPA review limits to record before state court; prejudice inquiry tied to that record)
- Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1993) (prosecutor's closing arguments and defense objections; strategy defense)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1986) (counsel’s trial strategy in presenting mitigating evidence)