Earp v. Davis, No. 15-56989 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order on remand denying petitioner's claims that the California state court improperly denied his motion for a new trial based on the State's prosecutorial misconduct. Petitioner was convicted of raping and killing an eighteen-month-old girl. The panel held that the district court properly denied further discovery in light of its finding that there was no good cause to permit additional discovery because petitioner received the adverse inference he desired and further discovery into the State's alleged spoliation of evidence would not affect the decision of the remaining witness intimidation claim of the habeas petition. The panel also held that the district court did not clearly err in weighing the credibility of the witnesses in light of the evidence adduced at the hearing.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s order on remand denying on the merits California state prisoner Ricky Earp’s remaining habeas corpus claims that the state court improperly denied his motion for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Earp contended that he should have been allowed to conduct further discovery to explore a possible relationship between those responsible for the California Department of Justice’s alleged spoliation of DNA evidence and alleged witness intimidation; and that the district court improperly weighed and did not credit the defense witnesses’ testimony, notwithstanding an adverse inference given to Earp for the limited purpose of assessing the witnesses’ credibility at the evidentiary hearing. The panel held that the district court correctly found that any link between spoliated evidence established by the adverse inference (even if true) and the alleged witness intimidation was too attenuated, and did not abuse its discretion in declining to authorize further discovery in light of that finding. The panel held that the district court did not clearly err in weighing the credibility of the evidence in light of the evidence adduced at the hearing.
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.