Woods v. Sinclair, No. 09-99003 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder in the first degree, one count of attempted murder in the first degree, and one count of attempting to elude a police vehicle. Defendant raised several issues on appeal. The court held that defendant was not entitled to relief on his claim that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself where the Washington Supreme Court's determination was not unreasonable in light of the circumstances. The court also held that the admission of one of the victim's out-of-court statements at trial as an excited utterance was an unreasonable application of clearly established law, but that defendant could not establish prejudice as a result of the Confrontation Clause violation. Therefore, defendant was not entitled to habeas relief on this issue. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on defendant's two sub-claims regarding the state's withholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The court finally held that, although defendant's trial counsel might not have provided a model defense, counsel's actions did not render defendant's trial fundamentally unfair. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of relief on defendant's claim of cumulative deficiency. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 25, 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.