725 F.3d 1045
9th Cir.2013Background
- Saesee was convicted in Tulare County of first degree murder, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, and unlawful person to shoot from a vehicle, resulting in life without parole plus 25-to-life concurrent term.
- Defense counsel Kordell opened with a theory that Saesee could not have been at the scene because Breanna Saecho, Saesee’s girlfriend, could corroborate an alibi from Breanna’s house; he mentioned Breanna’s grandfather as a potential corroborator.
- Breanna testified that Saesee was her boyfriend and that he spent the day with her on the day of the shooting.
- Kordell stated during the opening that he was counting on Breanna’s grandfather to tell the truth and corroborate the girl’s account, but did not call the grandfather.
- California courts held that the opening statement did not constitute a promise to call the grandfather and thus did not show prejudice under Strickland; AEDPA review applied.
- The district court and Ninth Circuit denied Saesee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, concluding no unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and no prejudice from any alleged promise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a promise to produce Breanna’s grandfather as a witness? | Saesee | Kordell promised to rely on the grandfather; no definite promise to testify | No binding promise to produce the grandfather |
| If a promise existed, did it prejudice Saesee under Strickland? | Saesee | No prejudice without a clear promise | No prejudice because no clear promise was made |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Warden, 422 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2005) (AEDPA review and Strickland standard in habeas corpus)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2003) (unreasonable application standard under AEDPA)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (clearly established federal law for Strickland)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (unreasonable application must be objectively unreasonable)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (U.S. 2009) (doubly deferential review under AEDPA for ineffective assistance)
- Ouber v. Guarino, 293 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2002) (promises to produce evidence can be damaging if unfulfilled)
- McAleese v. Mazurkiewicz, 1 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 1993) (failure to produce promised testimony supports ineffectiveness)
- Hampton v. Leibach, 347 F.3d 219 (7th Cir. 2003) (promised testimony and juror perception issues)
- Anderson v. Butler, 858 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1988) (promise to present testimony and its impact on defense)