Martin Fong v. Charles Ryan, 760 F.3d 947

Arizona prisoner Martín Soto-Fong (Fong) appeals denial of his §2254 petition challenging murder/robbery convictions from the El Grande Market triple homicide (1992).
Codefendants McCrimmon and Minnitt faced separate prosecutions; McCrimmon acquitted on retrial, Minnitt’s convictions vacated after prosecutorial misconduct was exposed.
Prosecutor Peasley was disbarred for misconduct related to Woods’ testimony—misstating when investigators learned of Woods and the identities involved.
Woods, a state informant, provided critical testimony linking McCrimmon, Minnitt and a third person to the crime; Godoy, a detective, allegedly provided false testimony to bolster Woods’ credibility.
Fong raised Napue and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims concerning Godoy’s testimony and Stuehringer’s decision to call Woods as a defense witness; the district court denied, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
AEDPA governs review; the court grants relief only if the state court’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or involved an unreasonable determination of facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Napue violation due to false testimony	Fong argues Godoy’s false testimony about when he suspected Fong tainted Woods’ credibility.	Arizona courts correctly applied Napue, finding the testimony not material or false in the required sense.	Napue claim denied; State court reasonably found no material false testimony or impact on verdict.
Ineffective assistance of counsel for calling Woods	Stuehringer’s decision to call Woods as a defense witness was deficient and prejudicial.	State court found strategy reasonable and Woods’ testimony essential to the mistaken-identity defense.	Ineffective-assistance claim rejected; state court’s Strickland analysis deemed reasonable.

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (false evidence requires due process violation when known false and material)
United States v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2003) (test for false testimony materiality under Napue)
Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (1957) (false impression of evidence violates due process)
Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2005) (duty to correct false testimony; not required for relief to be denied)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (unreasonable application standard for AEDPA review)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (unreasonable application of federal law requires more than error)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference; objective reasonableness standard)
Edwards v. Lamarque, 475 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc precedent on Strickland and deferential review)