Pisa

MEMORANDUM *

Somdeth Pisa appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudicial erroneous jury instructions. We affirm.

Pisa’s petition is governed by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We will grant habeas relief *588 only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

The decision of the California Court of Appeal rejecting Pisa’s ineffective assistance claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Even if trial counsel was deficient in failing to communicate adequately with Pisa, see Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 457 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Tucker, 716 F.2d 576, 581-82 (9th Cir.1983), or in failing to investigate potential witnesses, see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1456-57 (9th Cir.1994), Pisa fails to show a “reasonable…

dissenting.

I dissent. This is an egregious case of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial judge stated that counsel’s opening argument gave him “the distinct impression that this attorney doesn’t really have a clue about where he’s going or what his theory is or what the defense is or what the case is all about. And I think the closing argument doesn’t do much to dispel that initial impression, frankly.”

Incredibly, defense counsel’s shortcomings in the courtroom pale when compared to his absolute delinquency in preparing for his Ghent’s trial. Following his brief initial visit with Somdeth Pisa, which lasted no more than thirty minutes, he saw Pisa only during court appearances and failed to review any evidence, or discuss the case, with him. More important, he did not contact any witnesses to the events immediately giving rise to the charges against Pisa, including Khamphiang Daraphath, who was named as a witness in the police report. Daraphath submitted a sworn declaration in support of Pisa’s new trial motion in which he stated unequivocally that the accuser did not suffer the injuries in the way she described, but rather likely as the result of falling while…