Paul Michael THOMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert BORG, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees

Opinion by Judge KLEINFELD.

This is a state habeas corpus case. We apply the newly established standard for prejudice in state habeas constitutional error cases, and determine that on the facts of this ease, there was no prejudice requiring that the writ be issued.

I. Facts.

Two groups confronted each other behind a fried chicken restaurant. Thompson stabbed three men from the other group, killing one of them. He also held a knife as he spoke with a woman in a car and slashed one of her tires.

He was charged with first degree murder for the killing, attempted murder for the two stabbings, and assault with a deadly weapon for threatening the woman in the car. By the time trial started, the prosecution had reduced the charges to first degree murder for the dead man, and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon. The prosecution tried to prove that he set out to kill the man who died, because Thompson thought the victim was a “snitch.”

Thompson testified. He did not deny the stabbings. His story was that it was a fight, and he stabbed the three men in self defense. He claimed that he thought the man he killed had a knife in his hand, because his own fist was cut when he hit…

dissenting:

The majority rides roughshod over long-established circuit precedent and abruptly discards our well-considered approach to cases in which the jury improperly receives highly prejudicial information. Worse, it treats the law of this circuit with such disregard that it pauses only briefly to discuss the controlling precedents, makes only the faintest attempt to distinguish them, and utterly fails to identify any legally significant basis for doing so. Because I find that the communication to the jury of information regarding Thompson’s withdrawn guilty plea deprived him of a fair trial, I would reverse the judgment of the district court, and would, therefore, not reach Thompson’s separate claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

I.

The majority can affirm the judgment of the district court only by disregarding the clear holdings of our prior cases that speak directly to the issue of juror misconduct or jury contamination, Dickson v. Sullivan, 849 F.2d 403 (9th Cir.1988), Jeffries v. Blodgett, 5 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.1993), and Lawson v. Borg, 60 F.3d 608 (9th Cir.1995). 1 The clear *1578 import of those cases is that the exposure of the jury to highly prejudicial extraneous…

74 F.3d 1571 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 441 , 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 699 Paul Michael THOMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert BORG, et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-15846. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 14, 1995. Decided Jan. 22, 1996. Connie M. Alvarez, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sacramento, California, for petitioner-appellant. Gregory W. Baugher, Senior Assistant Attorney General (on the briefs), and Arnold Overrowe, Deputy Attorney General (argued), Sacramento, California, for respondents-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding. Before: REINHARDT, THOMPSON, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge KLEINFELD. KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge: 1 This is a state habeas corpus case. We apply the newly established standard for prejudice in state habeas constitutional error cases, and determine that on the facts of this case, there was no prejudice requiring that the writ be issued. 2 I. Facts. 3 Two groups confronted each other behind a fried chicken restaurant. Thompson stabbed three men from the other group, killing one of them.…