Michael Arnold v. Anthony Kane

Good Law
462 F. App'x 764
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 21, 201110-16956California253 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Michael G. Arnold appeals the denial of his federal habeas petition. He argues that adverse pretrial publicity deprived him of a fair trial and that the state trial court should therefore have granted a change of venue. We affirm.

Because Arnold’s habeas petition was filed after April 24,1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) applies. Under AEDPA, Arnold must demonstrate that the state court’s merits decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

To establish a constitutional violation on grounds of adverse pretrial publicity, a criminal defendant must demonstrate either actual or presumed prejudice. Randolph v. California, 380 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir.2004). Arnold fails to establish any error, let alone one rising to the level necessary for relief under § 2254(d). The state court reasonably concluded that the publicity surrounding his trial was not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.