Henry v. Ryan, No. 09-99007 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of first degree murder, kidnapping, robbery, and theft, appealed the denial of his habeas petition. The court, inter alia, concluded on the merits, without reaching the procedural default issue, that petitioner's Brady v. Maryland claim regarding the state's suppression of the codefendant's notes failed because petitioner could not establish that the allegedly suppressed evidence was material to the guilty verdict. Petitioner's claim regarding the state's alleged suppression of omitted photographs was procedurally defaulted. On the merits, petitioner's claim that the detective knowingly presented false testimony in violation of Napue v. Illinois was rejected because petitioner failed to establish that the detective knowingly provided false testimony during trial. The court granted petitioner's motion to expand the certificate of appealability to cover his causal nexus claim; denied petitioner's motion to expand the certificate of appealability to cover his juror misconduct claim; and affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus/Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a conviction and capital sentence for murder, kidnapping, robbery, and theft. The panel first exercised its discretion to deny petitioner’s Brady claim on the merits, despite a procedural default issue, then held that notes the prosecution withheld were not material to the guilty verdict. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The panel also held that petitioner was not diligent in securing the facts supporting his claim that photographic evidence produced by the state before trial was altered, and that some photos had been omitted and not produced during discovery. The panel further held that the state’s suppression of evidence was not the cause of petitioner’s failure to comply with state procedural rules so as to excuse the procedural default of this claim. The panel denied petitioner’s Napue claim on the merits, despite a procedural default issue, because petitioner had not established that a detective knowingly provided false testimony that the prosecution knew the testimony would be inaccurate. See Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). The panel next denied a certificate of appealability as to petitioner’s claim of juror misconduct when the jurors allegedly considered extrinsic evidence (two jurors performed an experiment to test one of petitioner’s contentions) because petitioner could not show that the alleged misconduct had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict. The panel granted a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, then affirmed the district court’s denial of relief as to petitioner’s claim that the state courts applied an unconstitutional causal nexus test when considering mitigating evidence of petitioner’s history of alcohol abuse, for lack of a substantial and injurious effect on the sentence. The panel affirmed the denial of petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present mitigating evidence of petitioner’s childhood sexual abuse and mental illness, because the state court reasonably concluded that petitioner failed to show prejudice.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 8, 2014.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 4, 2014.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 30, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.