Griffin v. Harrington, No. 12-57162 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThe district court granted petitioner's petition for a 28 U.S.C. 2254 writ of habeas corpus, concluding that petitioner had ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that California's Court of Appeal's application of the Strickland v. Washington standard was unreasonable. The district court also concluded that the Court of Appeal's factual findings in support of its decision were unreasonable. Counsel failed to timely object to an unsworn witness's testimony, knowing at the time that the witness had decided to change his story, and, therefore, counsel waived any objections he might of had to the testimony. The court affirmed, concluding that the Court of Appeal's conclusion that counsel's decision not to object in a timely fashion was acceptably tactical and not error was objectively unreasonable; the Court of Appeal's factual determinations were unsupported by the record and thus demonstrably and clearly erroneous; and petitioner was prejudiced by these errors.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a murder conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Although trial counsel knew that the only witness who would identify petitioner as the shooter had decided to change his testimony, counsel did not object when the witness took the stand and answered questions on direct and cross examination, all without taking an oath. Determining that counsel’s failure to object constituted a waiver, the trial court denied a subsequent objection to introduction of the witness’ taped, inculpatory statement to the police. The panel held that the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion, that counsel’s failure to make a timely objection was tactical and not error, was objectively unreasonable and unsupported by the factual record.
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.