(HC) Jordan v. Martel, 2:11-cv-02438

Background

Petitioner Michael T. Jordan was convicted in 2008 of continuous sexual abuse of a child and a lewd act on a minor and sentenced to 16 years 8 months.
The victim ("Doe") testified to repeated molestation beginning in childhood and identified multiple out‑of‑court complaints to friends and her mother; the jury convicted on both counts.
Prosecutor’s evidence included forensic analysis of the family computer showing access to erotica/incest stories under a user account associated with petitioner; no child pornography was found.
Defense presented alibi/exculpatory evidence (witnesses, testimony that petitioner was at work for certain accesses), character witnesses, and petitioner testified; defense counsel did not retain a computer forensic expert, nor request CALCRIM 332 (expert witness instruction) or CALCRIM 375 (prior bad acts instruction).
Petitioner later alleged trial counsel was ineffective (including because counsel drank alcohol during trial) and sought an evidentiary hearing; California appellate court rejected the ineffective assistance claims and this federal habeas petition was denied on the merits under AEDPA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to hire a computer expert	Counsel’s lack of a forensic expert was unreasonable and prejudiced the defense because the computer evidence was a lynchpin.	Counsel made a reasonable strategic choice to impeach the forensic evidence with extrinsic alibi/evidence and other attacks; hiring an expert was not necessary.	Denied: counsel’s decision was a reasonable trial tactic; even if different testimony existed, no reasonable probability of a different outcome given corroborating witness complaints.
Failure to request CALCRIM No. 332 (expert credibility instruction)	Omitting the specific expert‑opinion instruction undermined jury evaluation of the forensic testimony and compounded expert‑evidence harm.	General witness credibility instruction (CALCRIM 226) adequately covered evaluation of experts; omission was harmless.	Denied: no prejudice because CALCRIM 226 instructed jurors to assess credibility of all witnesses, including experts.
Failure to request CALCRIM No. 375 (prior bad acts limiting instruction)	Prior pornographic browsing evidence required limiting instruction to avoid undue inference of propensity.	The evidence was admitted partly to corroborate the victim (not solely under Evidence Code §1101(b)), so CALCRIM 375 was inapplicable; requesting it would have been futile.	Denied: as a matter of state law the instruction was inappropriate; failure to request it was not deficient performance.
Counsel’s alleged alcohol use affecting performance	Counsel’s apparent intoxication rendered his performance deficient and prejudicial.	Even assuming some smelling of alcohol, petitioner must still show deficient performance and prejudice; testimony shows no prejudice and counsel’s strategies were reasonable.	Denied: state court reasonably concluded petitioner failed to show counsel’s performance fell below Strickland or that any deficiency was prejudicial.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (reasonable‑performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" framework)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (definition of "clearly established Federal law" under AEDPA)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state‑court Strickland determinations under AEDPA)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (habeas review under §2254(d)(1) limited to state‑court record)