Jamaal Johnson v. Adam Paul Laxalt

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AUG 26 2015

JAMAAL JOHNSON, No. 14-15339 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00610-RCJ-VPC

v.

MEMORANDUM*

ADAM PAUL LAXALT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 7, 2015 San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN,** District Judge.

Petitioner Jamaal Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of habeas relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Reviewing de novo, Clabourne v. Ryan, 745 F.3d 362,

370 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation. 1. The district court correctly denied habeas relief on Petitioner’s claims

alleging a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Supreme

Court of Nevada…

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Jamaal Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Reviewing de novo, Clabourne v. Ryan, 745 F.3d 362, 370 (9th Cir.2014), we affirm.

1. The district court correctly denied habeas relief on Petitioner’s claims alleging a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The Supreme Court of Nevada reasonably concluded that, even assuming that the prosecution wrongfully withheld impeachment evidence concerning witnesses DeMarco Parker and Monique Morris, there was no “reasonable probability” that disclosure of the information would, collectively or individually, have made a difference to the outcome of Petitioner’s trial'. Smith v. Cain, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 627, 630 , 181 L.Ed.2d 571 (2012). Petitioner confessed to the crime; Parker testified on both direct and cross-examination about his criminal history and his desire to obtain leniency from both prosecutors by testifying against Petitioner; and Morris’ testimony had little importance. The additional evidence had no likelihood of changing the trial outcome.

Petitioner contends that the prosecution continues to withhold five…

District Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree that Petitioner Johnson loses on two of his three Miranda claims — that his confession was coached and coerced and that it was the product of a two-step “question first and warn later” interrogation strategy. I respectfully disagree, however, that it was reasonable for the Supreme Court of Nevada to find that Johnson’s waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing and intelligent. I therefore would reverse the district court’s denial of Johnson’s habeas corpus petition, and remand with instructions that the writ issue.

Johnson was arrested and taken into custody for possession of a stolen vehicle and drug possession. He then was brought to the ■ Homicide Office by the arresting officers, who had received notice that Johnson was wanted for questioning about a burglary and two murders. Johnson read the warnings he was provided as *495 printed on a “Rights of Persons Arrested” card, and he signed the card to indicate his understanding of them. Within the first few minutes of the audio-recorded interrogation, Homicide Detective Hardy asked Johnson to confirm that, prior to the start of the interview, Johnson had read and…