(HC) Bond v. Barnes, 2:12-cv-02747

Bond was convicted by a jury in California of second-degree murder and assault; sentenced to 15 years-to-life for murder; assault sentence stayed under Cal. Penal Code § 654.
Underlying facts: at a trailer-park barbeque Bond fought another man, became enraged, searched for a participant (Mike), encountered Adam Sigler, struck him once knocking him unconscious, then straddled and repeatedly struck the unconscious Sigler, who later died from brain injuries.
Defense presented experts diagnosing ADHD, dysthymia, organic brain syndrome and substance abuse; defense argued mental impairments explained impulsive violence.
On direct appeal Bond argued (1) insufficient evidence of malice for second-degree murder (should be involuntary manslaughter) and (2) prosecutor’s cross-examination of defense experts improperly suggested antisocial personality disorder.
California Court of Appeal affirmed; California Supreme Court denied review. Bond filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for implied malice supporting second-degree murder	Bond: evidence shows a single outburst of punches insufficient to prove malice; conviction should be reduced to involuntary manslaughter	State: evidence (initial punch knocking victim out, then repeated blows to an unconscious victim, threats beforehand) supports implied malice	Denied — substantial evidence supports implied malice; Jackson/AEDPA deference requires affirming state-court conclusion
Cross-examination of defense experts	Bond: prosecutor’s questions improperly insinuated antisocial personality disorder, undermining insanity/mental-impairment defense; trial error violated due process	State: cross-examination went to the expert’s basis and impeachment; any abuse-of-discretion claim is state-law and not cognizable on habeas; no fundamental unfairness shown	Denied — questions were proper impeachment of expert opinion; no due process violation and abuse-of-discretion standard not a basis for habeas relief

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA review: ‘‘contrary to’’ or ‘‘unreasonable application’’ of clearly established federal law)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (presumption of correctness for state-court factual findings)
Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (limitations on § 2254(d)(1) when Supreme Court holdings are lacking)
Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (distinguishing direct-review standards from AEDPA review)
Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (state court’s interpretation of state law binds federal habeas courts)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (standard on evaluating evidence accepted by the jury)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (rejecting less-deferential standards for AEDPA review)