George Berardi v. Daniel Paramo, 705 F. App'x 517

Berardi appealed denial of his federal habeas petition challenging jury impartiality and appellate counsel effectiveness after a California conviction.
During deliberations Juror Nine commented that if defendant were Black and victim white they would have convicted immediately; defense argued this showed racial bias.
California Superior Court conducted a post-trial inquiry, questioning six jurors with counsel present; the state appellate courts rejected the bias claim.
Berardi also claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise that his right to testify was violated (and relatedly for not litigating trial counsel’s failure to call him).
The Ninth Circuit reviewed under AEDPA standards, granted expansion of the COA to consider the ineffective-assistance claim, but affirmed denial of habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror bias based on Juror Nine’s race-related remark	Berardi: Juror Nine’s comment showed racial bias undermining jury impartiality	State: Remark reflected juror frustration about deliberations, not racial animus; adequate post-trial inquiry occurred	Court: Affirmed state court; remark did not prove bias and the hearing afforded a sufficient opportunity to show bias
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising right-to-testify claim	Berardi: Appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise claim that trial counsel prevented him from testifying	State: Claim was untimely and, on merits, would have failed because record showed Berardi acquiesced to counsel’s advice; appellate counsel not ineffective	Court: Granted COA expansion but affirmed; even if timely, claim fails under Strickland because record reasonably supports that Berardi did not unequivocally demand to testify

Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (remedy for juror partiality is a hearing; jury must decide solely on evidence)
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (statements indicating racial bias can warrant relief)
Hedlund v. Ryan, 854 F.3d 557 (post-trial juror-impartiality hearings sufficient when fact-finding is objective)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (Strickland applied to appellate counsel)
Woods v. Etherton, 136 S. Ct. 1149 (evaluate ineffective-assistance claims by looking to the merits)
Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160 (when state court gives no reasoned decision, federal court independently reviews the record)