Marilyn Freeman v. Matthew Cate
705 F. App'x 513
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Freeman was convicted in California state court of stalking, burglary, solicitation to commit kidnapping, misdemeanor battery, and child endangerment and filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging her convictions.
- Central issue: whether Judge O’Neill’s reinstatement to Freeman’s case after an earlier recusal (based on a mistaken belief Freeman had stalked a fellow judge) deprived Freeman of due process by creating judicial bias.
- California courts concluded the reinstatement likely violated state disqualification rules but did not meet the constitutional (Fourteenth Amendment) standard for disqualification under federal precedent.
- Freeman also argued ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to challenge the reinstatement or recusal of the entire San Diego bench.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed under AEDPA standards (doubly deferential where Strickland applies) and affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reinstatement of a previously disqualified judge violated due process | Freeman: reinstatement created an intolerable risk of actual bias requiring disqualification under the Due Process Clause | State: facts do not match extreme circumstances in Supreme Court precedent that require constitutional disqualification; state-law error alone is not constitutional harm | Court: No constitutional violation; state court decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging O’Neill’s reinstatement | Freeman: counsel should have moved to disqualify or otherwise challenge judge | State: counsel reasonably declined as a tactical judgment; alternative judges were worse and no clear, viable constitutional claim existed | Court: Under Strickland/AEDPA doubly deferential review, there is a reasonable argument counsel’s performance was adequate; claim fails |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising recusal of entire Superior Court bench | Freeman: appellate counsel omitted a meritorious recusal claim about the entire bench | State: given California Supreme Court’s ruling on O’Neill, there was no viable statutory or constitutional claim to raise | Court: Reasonable argument appellate counsel satisfied Strickland; claim fails |
| Standard of review applied | Freeman: (implicit) state decisions should be reversed if erroneous | State: AEDPA deference applies; Strickland deferential standard for ineffective assistance; combine for doubly deferential review | Court: Applied AEDPA + Strickland; required a showing that state court decision was contrary/unreasonable and counsel performance was objectively deficient — Freeman did not meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (standard for § 2254 review and interaction with Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (Due Process Clause requires disqualification only in extraordinary cases presenting extreme risk of bias)
- Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) (due process limits on judicial impartiality when judge has direct personal interest)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (definition of when a state court decision is "contrary to" federal law under AEDPA)
- White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (2014) ("objectively unreasonable" standard for unreasonable application under AEDPA)
- Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) (Due Process Clause establishes minimum constitutional standard for recusal; many disqualification questions are nonconstitutional)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (presumption of correctness for state court factual findings)
- McCormick v. Adams, 621 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2010) (look to last reasoned state decision when assessing federal habeas claims)