659 F.3d 722
9th Cir.2011Background
- Rossum convicted of murdering de Villers via fentanyl poisoning; trial evidence centered on toxicology and possible contamination; California Supreme Court denied habeas relief summarily; federal district court denied habeas relief; Ninth Circuit initially reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Strickland prejudice; intervening Supreme Court decisions in Harrington v. Richter and Pinholster v. Ayers affect review; the majority now holds the case is controlled by Harrington and affirms the district court decision; Judge Gertner dissents urging remand for an evidentiary hearing on both Strickland prongs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harrington controls review and supports affirming denial | Rossum contends deference still requires an evidentiary hearing under Strickland. | Respondents argue AEDPA deference and Pinholster limit new evidentiary development. | Affirmed; Harrington governs and supports denial of habeas relief. |
| Whether state court denial was unreasonable under Strickland given testing issues | Rossum would obtain relief if metabolite testing shows no fentanyl or contamination. | State asserts no unreasonable application given record. | Not addressed as a remand; held that under Harrington the prior ruling controls. |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing is permissible under Pinholster/evidentiary standards | Rossum seeks an evidentiary hearing to test samples and develop facts. | State argues Pinholster limits new factual development. | Evidentiary relief not required by this panel’s holding; affirmed denial. |
| Whether the appropriate remedy includes remand for further proceedings | Rossum seeks remand for full Strickland inquiry. | State as to no further remand required. | Affirmed; remand not required under the controlling holding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. _, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (deference under AEDPA for ineffective assistance claims; fair-minded jurists could disagree)
- Pinholster v. Ayers, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (restricts federal review to state-court record on §2254(d)(1) unless exception; evidentiary hearings limited)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Rossum v. Patrick, 622 F.3d 1262 (2010) ( Ninth Cir. panel decision remanding for evidentiary hearing on Strickland (withdrawn))
- Showers v. Beard, 635 F.3d 625 (2011) (post-Richter/forensic evidence; supports need for expert testing in some cases)