Gimenez

Gimenez v. Alameida

Good Law
135 F. App'x 20
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 27, 2005No. 03-57142; D.C. No. CV-99-01133-JTMCalifornia608 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*21 MEMORANDUM **

Alan Gimenez appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Gimenez argues that counsel failed to obtain all medical and lab reports, that he failed to investigate Dr. Lewis’s report, and that he should have consulted a hematologist in a case involving bleeding and blood disorders. Because we conclude that Gimenez was not prejudiced even if counsel’s performance were deficient in these respects, we affirm. 1 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

The Lewis report diagnosed epilepsy and noted that an August 7, 1991 spinal tap produced blood in the spinal fluid. However, the evidence shows that epilepsy is a symptom and could not explain Priscilla’s subdural hematoma. Nor does the fact that the spinal tap was bloody undermine confidence in the outcome. The presence of a subdural hematoma sometime before August 7, 1991 was equally consistent with the prosecution’s theory of the case (that Priscilla had experienced more than one incidence of shaking and died of Shaken Baby Syndrome) as with the defense theory that a birth injury…

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.