Fong v. Ryan, No. 11-17051 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of murder and robbery charges, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. Petitioner argued that the Arizona courts unreasonably rejected his claim under Napue v. Illinois that, during his trial, the prosecution also knowingly elicited and used the false testimony of a detective regarding when petitioner became a suspect in this case in order to secure his conviction. Petitioner also argued that the Arizona courts unreasonably rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim where counsel was ineffective for calling a state informant as a witness when the informant otherwise would not have testified at petitioner's trial. The court concluded that the Arizona courts did not engage in an unreasonable determination of the facts or an unreasonable application of controlling federal law when denying petitioner's prosecutorial misconduct claim or petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of petitioner's habeas petition.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of an Arizona state prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging convictions of murder, robbery and attempt, and aggravated robbery and attempt arising from a triple homicide. The panel held that the Arizona courts did not engage in an unreasonable determination of the facts or an unreasonable application of controlling federal law when denying the petitioner’s claim under Napue v. Illinois that the prosecution knowingly elicited and used the false testimony of a detective regarding when the petitioner became a suspect in this case. The panel held that the Arizona courts likewise did not engage in an unreasonable determination of facts or an unreasonable application of controlling federal law when denying petitioner’s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by calling as a witness, in pursuit of a mistaken-identity defense, a state informant who otherwise would not have testified at the trial. Dissenting, Judge Schroeder wrote that the petitioner did not receive a fair trial and the district court should have granted him habeas relief because the jury convicted the petitioner after a trial marked by perjury and incompetence.
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.