MICHAEL BEARD V. RON DAVIS, No. 11-17274 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 01 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL WILLIAM BEARD, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 11-17274 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03508-JKS v. MEMORANDUM* RON DAVIS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 12, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Michael William Beard appeals the denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for relief from his California conviction. We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The trial judge permitted a key prosecution witness to be impeached with the fact that he would receive a substantially reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony but did not allow inquiry into the exact details of the agreement, notably the precise length of the potential sentence. Defense counsel agreed with this limitation. The state court s ruling was not contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974), and Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986). As a result, the district court correctly denied Beard s Confrontation Clause claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Even if Beard were to show that the trial judge violated the Confrontation Clause, this claim fails under the harmless error standard. Because the judge allowed substantial cross-examination of the cooperating witness, and because there was strong evidence of Beard's guilt independent of that witness's testimony, any error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993). The district court was also right to deny Beard's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. For the same reason his Confrontation Clause claim fails the harmless error standard, this claim falls short of the prejudice prong in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Beard suffered no prejudice in light of 2 the significant cross-examination that was permitted, along with the strong evidence of guilt that did not depend on the credibility of the cooperating witness. Finally, the California Court of Appeal s decision that there was sufficient evidence to support the rape conviction is entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That decision was not an unreasonable application of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). AFFIRMED. 3
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.
