Shon Yokely v. Christian Pfeiffer
20-73660
| 9th Cir. | Nov 22, 2021Background
- Shon Yokely was originally convicted in 1992 for the murder of a 14‑month‑old and related attempted murders; he obtained federal habeas relief in 2007 (lawyer absent at a live lineup), was retried and reconvicted in 2008, and is serving four consecutive life terms.
- Yokely sought permission to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition raising five claims (ineffective assistance and due‑process violations); the Ninth Circuit treated one listed claim as two, for a total of five claims.
- Federal law (28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)) requires a petitioner seeking to file a second or successive petition to show (1) the factual predicate was not discoverable earlier with due diligence and (2) the new facts would establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty.
- The court found Yokely knew or reasonably could have discovered the factual predicates for his first four claims before or during his first habeas petition (including his dissatisfaction with counsel, the imposter issue, Brady‑related records, and counsel’s failure to investigate the eyewitness ID).
- The fifth claim relied on new crime‑scene reconstruction technology, but the expert’s report did not undercut the eyewitness evidence sufficiently (report accepted some witness observations; distance dispute undermined expert conclusions; a second eyewitness identified Yokely), so Yokely could not show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would convict.
- Conclusion: Yokely’s application for leave to file a second or successive habeas petition is DENIED.
Issues
| Issue | Yokely’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for inadequate pretrial investigation/prep | Counsel failed to investigate and prepare; counsel’s illness impaired representation | Yokely knew of counsel’s alleged shortcomings at trial (sought to co‑counsel, relieved counsel) and could have raised it earlier | Denied as successive — factual predicate was known pre‑existing; should have been raised in first petition |
| Imposter witness testifying as victim’s mother | Trial court failed to determine whether a person testifying as the mother was an imposter | Yokely raised the imposter issue at trial and declined to pursue it on appeal or in first habeas | Denied as successive — factual predicate was known at trial and earlier proceedings |
| Brady violation for nondisclosure of witness’s pending prosecution | Prosecution failed to disclose witness’s pending criminal charge and failed to correct testimony | Public records about the pending charge were discoverable; Yokely could have found them with due diligence | Denied as successive — claim was reasonably discoverable earlier |
| Counsel failed to investigate/challenge eyewitness ID (including reenactment tech) | Trial counsel did not adequately investigate the eyewitness ID or use reconstruction tools to challenge it | Yokely knew of counsel’s lack of preparation before and during trial and could have raised it earlier | Denied as successive — factual predicate was known and could have been raised in the first petition |
| New technology/crime‑scene reconstruction undermines eyewitness ID | New reconstruction techniques/personnel produce exculpatory evidence that would show ID unreliable | Expert report still admitted the witness could perceive general head shape/skin color; distance dispute and a separate eyewitness ID weaken the new evidence | Denied on merits of second‑prong — evidence does not show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would find guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (governs restrictions on second or successive habeas petitions)
- Solorio v. Muniz, 896 F.3d 914 (9th Cir.) (explains due‑diligence inquiry for new factual predicates)
- Gage v. Chappell, 793 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir.) (factual‑predicate/due‑diligence bar for successive petitions)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
- Gimenez v. Ochoa, 821 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir.) (standard for showing that no reasonable factfinder would have found guilt)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (prosecution’s obligation regarding access to evidence and witness veracity)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (prosecution must correct known false testimony)