Nicola Bucci v. Timothy Busby, 685 F. App'x 513

Nicola Bucci was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree murder after a head-on collision that killed two people and seriously injured two others.
The prosecution introduced evidence of a fatal 1994 accident involving Bucci; defense objected as improper propensity evidence.
Prosecutor made remarks in closing suggesting Bucci had "gotten away" with the 1994 fatalities and commented on character evidence; defense contended these remarks were prosecutorial misconduct.
Bucci asserted trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call an accident-reconstruction expert.
Bucci filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition; the district court denied relief and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of 1994 accident evidence (propensity)	Admission violated due process as impermissible propensity evidence	Introduction did not violate clearly established due process law; no Supreme Court rule forbids propensity evidence per se	Court: No clearly established law prohibiting propensity evidence; state court ruling not unreasonable; claim fails
Prosecutorial misconduct re: "got away" remark	Closing argument that Bucci "got away" with prior deaths deprived him of a fair trial	Remarks did not render trial fundamentally unfair; overwhelming evidence of guilt meant no prejudice	Court: State court reasonably found no due process violation; comments did not infect trial with unfairness
Prosecutorial remarks about character evidence	Remarks improperly bolstered propensity and prejudiced jury	Remarks were not so inflammatory as to deny due process	Court: No due process violation; remarks acceptable under governing standard
Ineffective assistance for failing to obtain reconstruction expert	Counsel unreasonably failed to investigate; an expert could have undermined prosecution and changed outcome	Expert testimony likely would have conflicted with defense theory and not changed verdict; Strickland not satisfied	Court: State post-conviction court applied Strickland reasonably; claim denied

Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial comments judged by whether they so infected trial with unfairness as to deny due process)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (prosecutorial remarks evaluated for prejudice to defendant's right to fair trial)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)