Runnels

Williams v. Runnels

Good Law
220 F. App'x 587
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 7, 2007No. 05-56752California315 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Curtis John Williams (“Williams”) appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. On appeal, Williams argues the district court erred in dismissing his habeas petition because the trial court’s erroneous ruling that duress is not a defense to felony murder denied him due process by rendering his trial fundamentally unfair and the refusal to give the duress instruction caused him to choose not to testify as to his “only defense.” In addition, Williams argues the district court erred in dismissing his habeas petition because his trial counsel’s choice to proceed with a reasonable doubt theory rather than a duress defense constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

The district court did not err in denying Williams’ habeas petition. A due process claim cannot be maintained on the basis of an erroneous pretrial ruling that influences a criminal defendant’s decision to testify, unless the defendant elects to testify. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 88 , 41-43, 105 S.Ct. 460 , 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984) (holding it is not a due process violation erroneously to deny an in limine motion to prohibit impeachment of defendant should he testify, when defendant…

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.