Tiffany Imel v. Dora Schriro

MEMORANDUM

Tiffany Marie Imel appeals the district court’s denial of her federal habeas petition. Because we agree that the state court decision rejecting her claims was not unreasonable, we affirm. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Imel argues that her right to a fair and impartial jury was denied by excessive pretrial publicity occurring during and shortly after her first trial, which ended in a deadlocked jury. Imel, noting that her second trial followed closely on the heels of her first trial, points primarily to media reports describing a co-conspirator as a “brain damaged hitman”; characterizations of Imel as a drug addict; reports of a financial motive for the murder; and reports on the prior jury foreman’s opinion that eleven members of the first jury favored conviction. Imel argues that this coverage was so pervasive and inflammatory that the court must presume prejudice.

We disagree. “Prejudice is presumed when the record demonstrates that the community where the trial was held was saturated with prejudicial and inflammatory media publicity about the crime.” Harris v. Pulley, 885 F.2d 1354, 1361 (9th Cir.1988) (noting also that a finding of presumed prejudice is “rare[]” and…