At page 112 Requiring independent review of state court findings in habeas corpus14 citing cases‘The very nature of the habeas corpus action demands an independent review [of the record]’
- Ford v. Warden, 901 P.2d 123 (Nev. 1995).published(‘The very nature of the habeas corpus action demands an independent review [of the record]’)
- Brendan Nasby v. E. McDaniel, 853 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2017).publishedSee, e.g., Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 1987) (“We may not affirm a district court’s denial of a writ of habeas corpus unless the court either held a hearing, or the record shows that the district court independently review…
- Jerry Bartlett JONES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tana WOOD, Respondent-Appellee, 114 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1997).published“In considering a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the district court is required to ‘make its determination as to the sufficiency of the state court findings from an independent review of the record, or otherwise grant a hearing and…
- Michael Knaubert v. Goldsmith, Warden, 791 F.2d 722 (9th Cir. 1986).publishedTownsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. at 319 , 83 S.Ct. at 760 ; Richmond v. Ricketts, 774 F.2d 957, 961 (9th Cir.1985); Rhinehart v. Gunn, 598 F.2d 557, 558 (9th Cir.1979) (per curiam); Turner v. Chavez, 586 F.2d 111, 112 (9th Cir.1978) (per curiam).
- Willie Lee Richmond v. James Ricketts, 774 F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1985).publishedFailure to Review the State Court Record In considering a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the district court is required to “make its determination as to the sufficiency of the state court findings from an independent review of the r…
- Ronald Johnson v. Warden Lumpkin, 769 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1985).publishedGunn, 598 F.2d 557, 558 (9th Cir.1979) (per curiam); Turner v. Chavez, 586 F.2d 111, 112 (9th Cir.1978) (per curiam).
- Gene Andrew Austad v. Henry Risley & Thomas Sellars, & Attorney Gen. Mike Greely, Additional &, 739 F.2d 428 (9th Cir. 1984).published Our court has repeatedly held that when considering a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a district court must “make its determination as to the sufficiency of the state court findings from an independent review of the record, or otherw…
- In the Matter of the Petition of Edwin Grant Hamilton, 721 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1983).publishedIn this regard, we note that our court requires a district court, when considering a state prisoner’s habeas corpus petition to “ ‘make its' determination as to the sufficiency of the state court findings from an independent review of the…
- Robert Alton Harris v. R. Pulley, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, 692 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1982).published This court has consistently required a district court, when considering a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, to “make its determination as to the sufficiency of the state court findings from an independent review of the record, or other…
- United States of Am. Ex Rel. Alonzo Howard Jones v. Gayle M. Franzen, Illinois Penal Dir. & William J. Scott, Illinois Attorney Gen., 676 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982).published Jennings v. Ragen, 358 U.S. 276, 277 , 79 S.Ct. 321 , 322, 3 L.Ed.2d 296 (1959); Turner v. Chavez, 586 F.2d 111, 112 (9th Cir. 1978); Thacker v. Bordenkireher, 557 F.2d 98, 99 (6th Cir. 1977).
Show 4 more citing cases
- Robert R. Cody v. P. J. Morris, Warden, 623 F.2d 101 (9th Cir. 1980).publishedTurner v. Chavez, 586 F.2d 111, 112 (9th Cir. 1978).
- John K. Lincoln v. Franklin Y.K. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805 (9th Cir. 1987).published(determination whether prosecutor’s improper comments constituted harmless error “necessarily requires a firsthand view of the record)
- United States v. Terrance Karl Alden, 576 F.2d 772 (8th Cir. 1978).published See Magda v. Benson, 586 F.2d 111, 112 (6th Cir. 1976); Friedman v. United States, supra. 4 In the present case, the testimony of Lonnie Lee Taylor, who resided with appellant in Leasburg, indicated that the items seized had been placed in…
- Gene Andrew Austad v. Henry Risley & Thomas Sellers, & Attorney Gen. Mike Greely, Additional &, 761 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1985).published See, e.g., Turner v. Chavez, 586 F.2d 111, 112 (9th Cir.1978) (per curiam); Griff v. Rhay, 455 F.2d 494, 495 (9th Cir.1972) (per curiam).
At page 113 “We find that the issues raised by appellant were properly before the district court and remand for proceedings in accordance with this per curiam.”1 citing case
- Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F. Supp. 1189 (E.D. Cal. 1982).publishedTurner v. Chavez, 586 F.2d 111, 113 (9th Cir. 1978). 16 The obligation of a habeas petitioner to first fairly present the factual basis of his federal claim to the state court, when considered in conjunction with the power of a federal cou…
At page 111 “make its determination as to the sufficiency of the state court findings from an independent review of the record, or otherwise grant a hearing and make its own finding on the merits.”0 citing cases
Other citing cases
- Biller v. Lopes, 655 F. Supp. 292 (D. Conn. 1987).published
- Stanley Carl Rhinehart v. J. B. Gunn, 598 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1979).published
v.
Abe CHAVEZ, Respondent-Appellee
Turner appeals from an order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenged the constitutionality of two convictions for forcible rape entered against him. The district court concluded that the petition failed to adequately present disputed questions of fact which would require either an evidentiary hearing or a review of the record for procedural fairness. It conclusively appears that the decision of the district court was based on the opinion of the Court of Appeals of the State of California, rather than on an independent review of the record. We must therefore remand for such a review.
In considering a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the district court must make its determination as to the sufficiency of the state court findings from an independent review of the record, or otherwise grant a hearing and make its own findings on the merits. Griff v. Rhay, 455 F.2d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1972); United States ex rel. Jennings v. Ragen, 358 U.S. 276, 277, 79 S.Ct. 321, 3 L.Ed.2d 296 (1959). A reading of the well-reasoned opinion of the state court would indicate that appellant’s allegations may be without merit. However, this cannot be said with certainty without a review of the record. The very nature of the habeas corpus action demands an independent review.
Of particular concern to this court is appellant’s allegation of prosecutorial misconduct. The opinion of the state appellate court noted that the prosecutor made improper comments in derogation of defense counsel and witnesses, and improperly cross-examined witnesses. The state court found that the dominant figure during trial was “an aggressive, overbearing and rude prosecutor whose knowledge of the rules of evidence was woefully lacking,” and described the misconduct as “deplorable and unpardonable.” The determination that such egregious conduct constituted harmless error necessarily requires a firsthand view of the record.
The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foil. § 2254, became effective February 1, 1977, approximately two months pri- or to the date the state filed its answer to Turner’s petition. Rule 5 directs that the answering party attach relevant portions of the transcripts of the state proceedings to[*113] the answer. Rule 8 directs the judge to review the proceedings in order to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. It is plain that if a petition for writ of habeas corpus is one requiring an answer under Rule 4, then a review of the state court record will be necessary in order to properly dispose of the case.
The new rules give district courts flexibility to expand the materials before it where appropriate. In the instant case appellant alleged that he was denied a public trial. It is unlikely that a review of the record will be helpful in resolving this issue. Appellant and appellee should be allowed to submit additional materials pursuant to Rule 7 in order that they may have the opportunity to substantiate their contentions.
We find that the issues raised by appellant were properly before the district court and remand for proceedings in accordance with this per curiam.
VACATED AND REMANDED.