Green v. Larson, 4:10-cv-00005

Petitioner Baron Green was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of kidnapping with a deadly weapon and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and serious physical injury, with consecutive sentences for each victim.
Arizona appellate history upheld most direct-appeal claims; Arizona Supreme Court denied review; Petitioner pursued post-conviction relief (PCR) with varying results.
Petitioner raised five direct-appeal claims, including evidentiary rulings, Fifth Amendment issues, conflict-of-interest concerns, and jury instructions; some were resolved on direct appeal, others via PCR.
Petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel (claims 1–5) rooted in investigation, witness handling, discovery, evidence presentation, immunity issues, and sentencing strategy; the PCR court denied relief.
Respondents argued several claims (six–eight) were not exhausted in state court or were procedurally defaulted; the court concluded some claims were defaulted and others lacked merit under Strickland and related standards.
The magistrate judge concluded, after independent review, that the petition should be dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims six and seven were exhausted	Green exhausted via citations to federal standards in state petitions	Claims six and seven were not fairly presented and are procedurally defaulted	Claims six and seven procedurally defaulted; merits not reached
Efficacy of trial counsel (claims 1, 2, 4, 5) under Strickland	Counsel deficiencies violated Strickland, prejudicing outcomes	No deficient performance or prejudice; decisions were reasonable strategic judgments	Petitioner failed to show Strickland prejudice; no merit to these ineffective assistance claims
Sixth Amendment conflict of interest / counsel withdrawal (claim 8)	Withdrawal was required due to conflict of interest and appearance thereof	No actual conflict; joint representation permissible absent conflict; appeal affirmed	No violation; claim rejected
Jury instruction on reasonable doubt	Instruction defined beyond-reasonable-doubt as 'firmly convinced' improperly	Instruction consistent with State v. Portillo and approved by state courts; not clearly erroneous under federal law	Not contrary to federal law; not meritless
Claim eight (Sixth Amendment conflict) and related PCR/appeal considerations	Conflict invalidated counsel; due process concerns	State court reasonable and not an unreasonable application of federal law	No reversible error under AEDPA

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard)
Shumway v. Payne, 223 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2000) (general constitutional citation without fair presentation insufficient for exhaustion)
Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2005) (requires specific factual/legal theory for exhaustion beyond bare citation)
State v. Mills, 196 Ariz. 269, 995 P.2d 705 (App. 1990) (Arizona evidentiary standards; Fifth Amendment interplay and witness availability)
State v. McDaniel, 136 Ariz. 188, 665 P.2d 70 (1983) (narrow exception to compel witness testimony when Fifth Amendment invoked)
United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115 (1980) (principles governing conflict between compelled testimony and privileges)
U.S. v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1976) (explanation of Fifth Amendment privilege interaction with compulsory process)
United States v. Paris, 827 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1987) (immunity considerations for potential witnesses)
Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996) (defendant's right to present evidence is not unlimited; restrictions apply)
Tinsley v. Borq, 895 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1990) (due process and prejudice standard for evidentiary conclusions)