Peter Ivan McNeal v. Dean Borders
2:18-cv-06964
| C.D. Cal. | Jun 11, 2021Background
- Petitioner Peter Ivan McNeal was convicted of multiple sexual offenses based on testimony from a child victim (I.P.), the child’s mother (Michaele), and another alleged victim (M.K.), arising from a 2009 Thanksgiving party and a separate incident.
- I.P. testified that a male guest put his penis in her mouth at the party; Michaele testified I.P. reported and demonstrated what happened; a guest (Braden) testified he did not see the assault.
- M.K. separately identified McNeal as her assailant and described coercive conduct; the prosecution introduced the M.K. incident in part to show propensity/corroboration.
- McNeal filed a habeas petition arguing insufficiency of the evidence and multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims, including failure to retain/present memory or "taint" experts and failure to present corroborating evidence (e.g., about cupcakes at the party).
- The U.S. Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending denial of the petition; McNeal filed objections reiterating trial arguments; the district court (Judge Bernal) reviewed the objections de novo, accepted the R&R, and denied the petition with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | McNeal's Argument | Hill's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions | Conviction rested on an uncorroborated, inconsistent account by a young child and unreliable parental testimony | Victim testimony was corroborated by other evidence identifying McNeal; jury credibility findings stand | Denied — the evidence, including I.P.’s account and corroboration, was constitutionally sufficient; court will not reweigh credibility (R&R accepted) |
| IAC for failing to consult/present memory or taint experts | Counsel were ineffective for not retaining/presenting memory/taint experts to undermine victim/parent testimony | Trial counsel consulted psychiatrists with child-abuse expertise; petitioner failed to show counsel’s decision was unreasonable or provide declarations explaining omissions | Denied — petitioner failed to meet burden to show deficient performance; absence of expert testimony did not produce prejudice; Gentry framework applies |
| IAC for failing to present corroboration re: cupcakes at party | Counsel should have produced evidence to rebut prosecutor’s emphasis that McNeal lured I.P. with a cupcake | Evidence proffered by McNeal would not have shown there were no cupcakes; counsel’s handling was reasonable | Denied — proposed evidence would not have established the asserted fact; no prejudice shown |
| Need for state-court evidentiary hearing / counsel declaration | Petitioner sought an evidentiary hearing to explore counsel’s decisions and faults the lack of a counsel declaration | Burden rested on petitioner to produce evidence of deficient performance; failure to request or develop record on this issue undermines claim | Denied — petitioner did not show inability to develop the record or present evidence demonstrating deficient counsel decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Gentry v. Sinclair, 705 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts may rely on absence of counsel declarations when petitioner offers no evidence explaining counsel’s strategic choices)
- Bruce v. Terhune, 376 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal habeas courts may not reweigh state-court credibility determinations)
- Womack v. McDaniel, 497 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2007) (IAC claim rejected where petitioner offered only self-serving assertions and no evidence of counsel’s deficiency)
- McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120 (2010) (habeas sufficiency review considers all evidence, even that later found inadmissible)
- Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal court may not overturn state fact findings unless they are unreasonable)