Prentiss Griffin v. Kelly Harrington
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17046
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Griffin, a Grape Street Crips member, was tried and convicted of first‑degree murder in Los Angeles for the killing of rival gang member Dwin Brooks; sentence ultimately 80 years to life after state appeal.
- The prosecution’s key identification evidence was a recorded statement by Fred Wilberger (given to police months after the shooting) identifying “Prentiss” as the shooter; Wilberger later recanted at trial.
- At trial Wilberger refused to affirm the oath but nevertheless answered questions after the court declared him hostile; defense counsel cross‑examined and did not timely object to the unsworn testimony.
- Because defense counsel did not timely object and cross‑examined, the trial court and later the California Court of Appeal treated the failure as a waiver and admitted Wilberger’s prior recorded statement into evidence.
- Griffin exhausted state remedies, filed federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging ineffective assistance (Strickland) based on counsel’s failure to timely object; the district court granted relief and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Griffin's Argument | Warden's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to timely object to unsworn testimony and cross‑examination amounted to ineffective assistance under Strickland | Counsel’s omission was an unreasonable loss of the only realistic means to keep Wilberger’s prior inculpatory statement out of evidence, causing prejudice | The omission was a tactical decision or, even if error, the remaining evidence was sufficient so Griffin was not prejudiced | Court held counsel’s failure was objectively unreasonable under Strickland and prejudiced Griffin; state court’s contrary conclusion was unreasonable under § 2254(d) |
| Whether the California Court of Appeal unreasonably found counsel acted with a plausible tactical reason | Griffin argued the record shows counsel did not understand waiver consequences and had no sound tactical basis | Warden argued the Court of Appeal reasonably credited a tactical explanation for cross‑examining | Court found the state court’s factual and legal conclusions about counsel’s motives were clearly erroneous and objectively unreasonable |
| Whether the state court’s factual findings were unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2) | Griffin argued the record contradicts the Court of Appeal’s inference that Wilberger likely would have taken the oath if pressed | Warden contended the state court’s inferences were permissible | Court concluded the state court’s factual determinations were clearly erroneous in light of the record |
| Whether the prosecution’s case was strong enough that exclusion of Wilberger’s statement would not have affected the outcome | Griffin argued the case depended on Wilberger’s prior statement and without it the evidence was weak | Warden argued other circumstantial evidence sufficed for conviction | Court held there was a reasonable probability of a different result without Wilberger’s statement; case was weak absent that evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (federal habeas relief under AEDPA requires state court decision to be objectively unreasonable)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (state court decisions deserve deference unless fairminded jurists could not agree)
- Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (AEDPA imposes highly deferential standards in federal habeas review)
- Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103 (standard for § 2254(d)(2) factual‑error review)