Ninth Circuit -- DWAYNE WOODS V. STEPHEN SINCLAIR

DWAYNE WOODS V. STEPHEN SINCLAIR

 Where deft, in course of colloquy as to continuances, indicates readiness to proceed pro se, state courts' determination that the statement wasn't a valid attempt to dismiss counsel is not unreasonable.

Violation of confrontation clause was harmless error, as statements were cumulative.

No error in state court denial of evidentiary hearing to develop Brady claim as to lab's practice of discarding draft reports.

Lack of details in prosc's admission that some blood spilled at the lab is not grounds for justifying procedural shortcomings by deft.

Ineffective assistance: 

Attorney overwork not grounds for ineffective assistance claim.

State finding not unreasonable that lack of diminished capacity defense was not prejudicial given that it would have contradicted deft's alibi defense.

No evidence that deft would have agreed to intoxication defense.

No error in counsel not confronting witness on priors and changes in story, given other evidence of untrustworthiness.

No error in introduction of alias, as it was the sobriquet of the fingerprints.

Insufficient DNA critique presented at state level.

No error in illustrative autorads not going to jury room.

Procedural default on insipid cross of witness, as not argued in state habeus.

No reversible error from cumulative deficiencies.

[Thou shalt not kill.  -TMB ]