Joseph Wood, III v. Charles Ryan, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18969

Wood killed Debra Dietz and her father Eugene at the Dietz shop in Tucson on August 7, 1989; he was Debra's estranged boyfriend.
Wood had a history of abusive conduct toward Debra; a protective order was entered against him on July 8, 1989.
At trial Wood conceded his role but argued the killings were impulsive, not premeditated; the jury convicted on all counts and he received death sentences for the murders.
Arizona courts upheld the convictions and sentences; the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Wood pursued state post-conviction relief (PCR) in 1996 and 2002; he then filed a federal habeas petition under AEDPA in 1998, with subsequent district-court rulings and an appellate ruling affirming denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination	Wood alleges unfair prejudice from hypnosis/amobarbital questions, and other improper lines of questioning.	Prosecutor properly explored credibility and basis of expert opinions; questions were within permissible cross-examination.	No due process violation; no substantial prejudice shown.
Procedural default of additional misconduct claims	Claims were improperly defaulted and should be reached on the merits.	Claims were not fairly presented to the state courts and are procedurally barred.	Claims were procedurally defaulted and not subject to merits review.
Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and sentencing	Counsel inadequately investigated and failed to object to misconduct, impacting outcome.	Counsel's performance was reasonable and the record shows no prejudice.	No deficient performance or prejudice; claims denied.
Funding for neurometric brain mapping test and exhaustion	Funding denial violated rights and should be considered on the merits.	Claim not properly exhausted; independent state review does not cure exhaustion failure.	Not exhausted; affirm denial.

Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial misconduct standard requires due process violation)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (trial errors must affect fairness)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas review requires substantial and injurious effect)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas review defers to state court findings on questions of state law)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA deference standard for federal habeas review of state court decisions)
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (requirement to fairly present federal claims to state courts)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default and exhaustion principles in habeas corpus)
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (fair presentation requirement for federal claims in state court)
Moormann v. Schriro, 426 F.3d 1044 (2005) (state-court independent review does not exhaust all constitutional claims)
Correll v. Ryan, 539 F.3d 938 (2008) (assessments of capital-sentencing claims under AEDPA)
Totten v. Merkle, 137 F.3d 1172 (1998) (evidentiary-hearing standards in habeas proceedings)
Williams v. Calderon, 52 F.3d 1465 (1995) (prejudice standard in sentencing and ineffective assistance)
Nobari v. United States, 574 F.3d 1065 (2009) (cumulative-error considerations in federal review)
Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2004) (fair-presentation and exhaustion principles in 9th Cir. review)