SAMUEL AMANKRAH V. F. CHAVEZ, No. 11-57060 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAMUEL KWAME AMANKRAH, Petitioner-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 11-57060 D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00701-CAS v. MEMORANDUM* F. X. CHAVEZ, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Samuel Kwame Amankrah appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the denial of a habeas corpus petition, see Fairbank v. Ayers, 650 F.3d 1243, 1250 (9th Cir. 2011), and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). we affirm. Amankrah argues that the prosecutor made several remarks during closing argument that violated Amankrah’s Fifth Amendment right not to testify under Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965). The California Court of Appeal analyzed the prosecutor’s entire closing argument and concluded that two of the comments were improper, but that the Griffin error was harmless under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). The state court’s rejection of Amankrah’s claim was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, either Griffin or Chapman, nor an unreasonable determination of facts based on the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2199 (2015). Moreover, given the significant evidence of his guilt at trial, Amankrah has not shown that the prosecutor’s remarks had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993) (internal quotations omitted); see also Davis, 135 S. Ct. at 2198. Amankrah’s motion to present late new evidence is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 11-57060
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.
