Brian Parker v. Larry Small
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25836
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Parker was convicted in San Mateo County Superior Court of murder with enhancements, receiving life without parole plus 37 years consecutive.
- At trial the jury, after days of deliberation, became deadlocked and the court issued a supplemental instruction known as the Moore instruction.
- The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, and the California Supreme Court denied review.
- Parker filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in the Northern District of California, which denied relief but granted a COA on the coercion claim.
- The district court and now the Ninth Circuit review under AEDPA’s deferential standard to determine if the state court decision was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Moore instruction was coercive | Parker argues the Moore instruction coerced the jury to convict. | California courts found the instruction not coercive under totality of circumstances. | Not coercive under AEDPA review. |
| Standard of review under AEDPA | Petitioner contends the state court misapplied federal law. | Respondent argues federal review is highly deferential under AEDPA. | Court applied deferential AEDPA standard and did not find unreasonable application. |
| Construction of coercion analysis after Lowenfield | Totality of circumstances including knowledge of holdout juror supports coercion finding. | California court properly weighed circumstances and did not find coercion. | California Court of Appeal reasonably applied Lowenfield standards. |
| Distinguishing Smith v. Curry | Smith shows more coercive error under similar facts. | Parker's facts are distinguishable; Moore instruction here was less coercive. | Smith distinguished; Parker not shown to be objectively unreasonable under governing principles. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896) (approve Allen charge allowing supplemental jury guidance)
- Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988) (totality of circumstances test for coercion; not per se coercive)
- Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445 (1965) (per curiam; context for totality review of juror coercion)
- Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (2002) (AEDPA deference to state-court rulings)
- Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3 (2002) (per curiam; AEDPA context for review standard)
- Smith v. Curry, 580 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes similar coercive-instruction facts; highly coercive features present in Smith not here)
- People v. Moore, 96 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (California precedent upheld Moore instruction)