Aaron Cooper v. Jeanne Woodford

MEMORANDUM

Aaron Cooper (“Cooper”) appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction for the murder of William Highsmith (“Highsmith”). We affirm.

We review Cooper’s insufficient evidence claim under the doubly deferential standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), which requires deference to both the jury’s verdict and the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (habeas relief appropriate only where the state court’s application of clearly established law is “objectively unreasonable”) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 406 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)).

Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports Cooper’s conviction. Most critically, the government offered evidence of motive; extensive eyewitness testimony that Cooper participated in the abduction of Highsmith at gunpoint, during which shots were fired; the opinion of a forensic pathologist that Highsmith died shortly after his…