Bradley Peters v. Patrick Glebe, 689 F. App'x 470

Bradley Peters filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his state conviction; the district court denied relief and Peters appealed.
At trial a videotaped deposition of a key witness/detective was played; Peters did not attend that deposition and did not object to its admission at trial.
Peters alleged multiple constitutional errors: confrontation/right-to-presence violation from admission of the deposition, ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to invite him to the deposition, and a Brady claim based on nondisclosure of a detective’s disciplinary record.
The Washington courts held Peters waived confrontation and presence rights and rejected his Brady claim as lacking prejudice; the state-court record was relied on below.
The district court also declined to hold an evidentiary hearing; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of habeas de novo and the hearing denial for abuse of discretion.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief and held an evidentiary hearing was not required under § 2254(d).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation and right-to-be-present at deposition	Admission of videotaped deposition and Peters’ absence violated confrontation and right to be present	Peters waived both rights by not attending the deposition and not objecting at trial	Waiver; no constitutional violation—state court decision reasonable; affirmed
Ineffective assistance for counsel not inviting Peters to deposition	Counsel was deficient for failing to invite Peters to attend	Even if deficient, no Strickland prejudice shown—no reasonable probability of different outcome	No Strickland violation; relief denied
Brady nondisclosure of detective disciplinary record	State suppressed impeachment evidence about a detective that could affect credibility	Disciplinary issues were unrelated to the case and would have limited impeachment value; no prejudice	No Brady violation; prejudice not established
Request for evidentiary hearing	Needed to develop facts supporting claims (e.g., counsel’s conduct, Brady material)	State-court record disposed of claims under § 2254(d); hearing not required	District court did not abuse discretion in denying hearing under Cullen v. Pinholster

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (confrontation clause waiver and objection principles)
Wilson v. Gray, 345 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1965) (counsel may waive confrontation rights as trial tactic)
United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (1985) (defendant’s right to be present at crucial stages)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutorial nondisclosure and materiality standard)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (limits on evidentiary hearings when state record resolves § 2254(d) claims)
Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for habeas denial)
Wood v. Ryan, 693 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary hearing denials)