Matthew Ruth v. Patrick Glebe
16-35837
| 9th Cir. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Matthew Ruth was convicted by a jury (Dec. 9, 2004) of two counts of first-degree assault with a deadly-weapon special verdict under Washington law.
- Ruth filed a federal habeas petition on April 3, 2015; the magistrate judge recommended denial and the district court adopted that recommendation.
- Ruth raised claims including prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument (allegedly implying a duty to retreat), ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting a lesser-included second-degree assault instruction, ineffective assistance for use of a disapproved self-defense instruction, and absence of counsel when the trial court answered a jury question.
- The Washington Court of Appeals rejected Ruth’s claims; the federal habeas court reviewed whether that decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding the state court’s determinations were not unreasonable under Supreme Court precedent and that Ruth failed to meet Strickland’s prejudice prong where applicable.
Issues
| Issue | Ruth's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s closing argument implied duty to retreat undermining self-defense | Prosecutor misstated law, implying duty to retreat and prejudiced jury against self-defense | Statements were isolated, taken in context, and did not substantially influence verdict | No unreasonable application of federal law; no prejudicial misconduct found |
| Counsel failed to request lesser-included (2nd-degree) instruction | Failure was objectively unreasonable and likely affected sentence/outcome | Tactical decision; all-or-nothing strategy reasonable and burden on Ruth to show it was not strategic | No Strickland violation; state court reasonably found strategy not unreasonable |
| Counsel requested a disapproved self-defense instruction (referenced great bodily harm) | Instruction was legally improper and prejudiced defense | Instruction matched defendant’s theory (believed victims would inflict great bodily harm); no prejudice shown | No Strickland prejudice; state court reasonably found no impact on outcome |
| Counsel absent when judge responded to jury’s request to view transcripts | Absence denied effective assistance at a critical stage | Jury requested transcripts not in evidence; judge’s response was compelled and not a critical stage with significant consequences | No Sixth Amendment error; not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law |
| Uncertified issue briefed by Ruth | Urged consideration | State declined certification/merits not reached | Court declined to address uncertified issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (standard for unreasonable application of Strickland and AEDPA review)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial-misconduct review requires evaluation in context of entire argument)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (harmless-error standard in federal habeas review)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (isolated prosecutorial remarks generally do not warrant reversal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (constitutional right to counsel at critical stages)
- Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (definition of critical stages and prejudice inquiry)
- Matylinsky v. Budge, 577 F.3d 1083 (strategic choices regarding lesser-included instructions)
- Crace v. Herzog, 798 F.3d 840 (reasonableness of all-or-nothing defense strategies)