From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sims v. Brown

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 21, 2005
430 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2005)

Summary

denying habeas relief because “[Petitioner's] argument turns on a latter-day battle of experts; however, the question is whether counsel did all that he was constitutionally required to do at the time”

Summary of this case from Medina v. Chappell

Opinion

No. 03-99007.

Argued and Submitted June 9, 2005.

Filed September 21, 2005. Amended December 8, 2005.

Trevor W. Morrison and John H. Blume, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY, for the petitioner-appellant.

David F. Glassman, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for the respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; George H. King, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-95-05267-GHK.

Before B. FLETCHER, RYMER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.



ORDER

The majority opinion filed September 21, 2005, is amended as follows:

Page 13519, line 6: delete sentence beginning with "Indeed, Sims submitted no evidence. . . ."

With this amendment, the majority of the panel votes to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Rymer and Fisher vote to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge B. Fletcher would grant the panel rehearing and recommends en banc rehearing.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed.R.App.P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.


Summaries of

Sims v. Brown

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 21, 2005
430 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2005)

denying habeas relief because “[Petitioner's] argument turns on a latter-day battle of experts; however, the question is whether counsel did all that he was constitutionally required to do at the time”

Summary of this case from Medina v. Chappell

rejecting argument that district court improperly applied Brecht by assessing the strength of the state's evidence apart from the erroneously admitted statements, "because courts do review all the state's evidence to determine whether error had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict," and citing cases

Summary of this case from Donald v. Sherman
Case details for

Sims v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:Mitchell Carlton SIMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page 1221 Jill BROWN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 21, 2005

Citations

430 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2005)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Hedgpeth

On habeas review, "courts do review all the state's evidence to determine whether error had a substantial and…

Vale v. Gibson

Youth and lack of life experiences are valid race-neutral reasons to strike a juror. See Sims v. Brown, 425…