Robert Smith v. Renee Baker, 671 F. App'x 951

Robert Anthony Smith convicted by Nevada jury of second-degree murder; petitioned for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after Nevada Supreme Court adjudication of his claims.
Smith contended prosecutors committed misconduct by misstating an eyewitness’s prior testimony during witness examination and misstating law on voluntary manslaughter in closing argument.
Forensic evidence: .9 mm Luger cartridges found in Smith’s apartment matching casing from the truck bed where the victim was shot; there was a second eyewitness identification of Smith as the shooter.
Smith also alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for inadequate investigation, failure to present potentially exculpatory witnesses, and failure to object to allegedly inadmissible testimony.
The district court denied relief; this appeal challenges the Nevada Supreme Court’s denial of the prosecutorial-misconduct and Strickland claims and seeks an expanded certificate of appealability for six additional uncertified issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor misstated eyewitness testimony during trial	Mischaracterization of inconsistent eyewitness testimony denied a fair trial	Misstatement was promptly objected to; other strong evidence diminished impact	Court held error, if any, was harmless and state court ruling was reasonable; no habeas relief under §2254(d)(1)
Prosecutor misstated law on voluntary manslaughter in closing argument	Misstatement rendered trial fundamentally unfair	Argument accurately restated jury instructions and applied law to evidence	Court held prosecutor did not misstate law; conviction not denied due process; no relief under §2254(d)(1)
Ineffective assistance of counsel (investigation, witnesses, objections)	Counsel failed to investigate, call exculpatory witnesses, and object—prejudicing defense	Counsel cross-examined on issues, strategically declined witnesses that would conflict with defense, elicited admissions negating harm from nonobjection	Court held Smith failed both Strickland prongs; state court reasonably denied the claim
Certificate of appealability for six uncertified issues	Seeks expansion to include six additional constitutional claims	District court dismissed three procedurally and denied three on merits; no substantial showing of constitutional violation	Court declined to expand COA; no substantial showing under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2)

Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (measuring fairness of prosecutor conduct by evidence misstatement, curative instruction, and weight of evidence)
Tak Sun Tan v. Runnels, 413 F.3d 1101 (applying Darden factors in Ninth Circuit review)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference standard: fairminded jurists could disagree under §2254(d)(1))
United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (comments must be viewed in context before overturning conviction on prosecutorial remarks)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance—performance and prejudice prongs)
Jones v. Ryan, 691 F.3d 1093 (Darden standard quotation on trial fairness)
Shackleford v. Hubbard, 234 F.3d 1072 (standard for certificate of appealability encouragement to proceed)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right)