Davidson

Davidson v. Arnold

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 23, 20203:16-cv-03298California7,405 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD C. DAVIDSON, Case No. 16-cv-03298-JD

8 Petitioner,

ORDER RE PETITION FOR WRIT OF

9 v. HABEAS CORPUS AND CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

10 ERIC ARNOLD,

Respondent. 11

12 13 Richard Davidson, a California state prisoner, filed pro se a habeas petition pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court ordered respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted. 15 Respondent filed an answer and a memorandum of points and authorities in support of it, and 16 lodged exhibits with the Court. The claim addressed here is whether the prosecutor’s attacks on 17 defense counsel’s integrity and honesty in closing argument, and that counsel’s failure to object or 18 request a limiting instruction, deprived Davidson of effective representation under the Sixth 19 Amendment. The Court finds that the prosecutor’s ad hominem attacks were serious misconduct, 20 and that defense counsel performed inadequately by failing to redress them in any way. The 21 petition is granted. 22 …

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.