John Schroeder v. Jeff Premo, 15-35713

John Schroeder convicted in Oregon of multiple counts including first-degree rape, sodomy, robbery, and burglary; he filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after AEDPA's effective date.
Schroeder sought (a) funds to hire and (b) admission of defense expert testimony on eyewitness identification; the trial court denied funding and excluded the expert under Oregon precedent.
Schroeder alleged ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) based on four tactical failures: inadequate impeachment, failure to object to bitemark evidence, conceding possession of clothing, and calling two witnesses who provided adverse testimony.
The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the exclusion of the expert and the denial of funds; the state post-conviction review rejected Schroeder’s IAC claims.
On federal habeas review the Ninth Circuit applied AEDPA’s deferential standards and reviewed whether the state court rulings were contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or based on unreasonable factual determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness ID	Exclusion violated due process and right to present a defense; testimony was relevant to undermine ID reliability	Exclusion consistent with Oregon precedent; no clearly established Supreme Court authority requiring such expert testimony	Affirmed exclusion; Schroeder failed to show exclusion was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
Right to state-funded expert on eyewitness ID	Indigent defendant entitled to funds to retain an ID expert to present defense	No Supreme Court authority requires funding for non-psychiatric experts; trial court’s denial lawful	Denial of funds was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law
Ineffective assistance of counsel (impeachment, bitemark objection, admission re clothing, calling witnesses)	Counsel’s failures fell below objective standard and prejudiced outcome	Counsel’s acts were within strategic choices; state court reasonably found no deficient performance or prejudice	IAC claims denied; Schroeder did not overcome presumption of competence or show prejudice under Strickland/AEDPA double deference
Cumulative constitutional error / exhaustion	Accumulation of errors requires relief	No substantial federal error shown; exhaustion not resolved but claim merits rejected as not colorable	No relief for cumulative error because no underlying federal violations established

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (federal habeas review under AEDPA applies)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (due process right to present a defense)
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (limits on right to present evidence; exclusions must be arbitrary or disproportionate to violate rights)
United States v. Langford, 802 F.2d 1176 (9th Cir. precedent upholding exclusion of eyewitness ID expert testimony)
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (indigent defendants entitled to psychiatric experts in some circumstances)
Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882 (no constitutional right to appointment of eyewitness ID expert)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Strickland standards discussed in habeas context)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 ("doubly deferential" review of IAC under AEDPA)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (standard for unreasonable application of Strickland on habeas review)
Rupe v. Wood, 93 F.3d 1434 (no cumulative-error reversal when no federal violations found)
Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614 (colorability standard for reaching merits despite exhaustion challenges)