Paul Bolin v. Ron Davis, 13 F.4th 797

In 1989 Paul Bolin shot three men in Kern County, California, killing two; eyewitnesses implicated him and he staged the scene to look like a bad drug deal.
Bolin was tried in Kern County, convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, found eligible for death, and sentenced to death after a penalty-phase jury verdict.
Defense counsel filed a pretrial motion to change venue based on pretrial publicity (notably an America’s Most Wanted reenactment) but did not renew the motion after voir dire; lead counsel was replaced before the penalty phase.
Penalty-phase counsel (Cater) conducted an investigation and presented family and prison-adjustment witnesses but did not present the later-developed expert and neuropsychological evidence Bolin now asserts should have been developed.
Bolin pursued state and federal habeas relief raising (inter alia) ineffective-assistance claims for (1) not renewing the venue motion (Claim C2) and (2) failing to develop additional mitigation / seek more continuance (Claim W/W2); the district court denied relief and the Ninth Circuit affirmed under AEDPA deference.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel ineffective for not renewing change-of-venue motion after voir dire (Claim C2)	Bolin: pretrial publicity (America’s Most Wanted, local media, survey results) prejudiced the jury; counsel should have renewed motion.	State: voir dire showed jurors largely did not recall specifics, jurors assured impartiality, county size and timing made venue change unlikely; renewing risked wasting peremptories.	Denied — under AEDPA, counsel’s decision was a reasonable strategic choice; state court rejection not objectively unreasonable.
Counsel ineffective for inadequate investigation/presentation of mitigation and for not seeking further continuance (Claims W/W2)	Bolin: counsel failed to develop neurological, substance-use, childhood-abuse, military-service, and expert-synthesizing mitigation that would likely have produced life sentence.	State: counsel investigated and presented family, military, and prison-adjustment mitigation; proffered experts’ opinions were speculative or duplicative and the aggravating evidence was extreme.	Denied — even assuming deficiency, under AEDPA Bolin failed to show a reasonable probability that additional mitigation would have changed the death verdict given strong aggravators.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (established two-prong ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (state-court decisions on merits entitled to deference under AEDPA)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (AEDPA review limited to record before the state court)
Shinn v. Kayer, 141 S. Ct. 517 (2020) (prejudice inquiry in capital cases requires showing a substantial likelihood the balance of aggravating/mitigating circumstances would differ)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel must investigate and present available mitigation; court must reweigh mitigation against aggravation)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (AEDPA requires state-court application of federal law be objectively unreasonable)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009) (interaction of Strickland and AEDPA deference)
People v. Balderas, 711 P.2d 480 (Cal. 1985) (county population and publicity considered in venue change analysis)
People v. Coleman, 768 P.2d 32 (Cal. 1989) (factors for change of venue and significance of exhausting peremptory challenges)
People v. Bolin, 956 P.2d 374 (Cal. 1998) (California Supreme Court decision affirming conviction and addressing counsel’s venue strategy)