Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Federal Prison in Victorville Might Not Be on Federal Land
However, Inmate Convicted in District Court of Attack on Fellow Prisoner Is Not Entitled to Habeas Relief Based on Incompetent Counsel for Not Having Raised Jurisdictional Objection in Light of Apparent Futility, Panel Says
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday that an inmate’s contention that the United States Prison at Victorville is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government might have merit, but that doesn’t mean, it said, that he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus based on incompetence of counsel for not arguing that at trial.
In a memorandum opinion, a three-judge panel said that the lawyer at trial might have deemed such a contention to be futile because it had been rejected by a District Court judge in an unpublished order filed Aug. 11, 2010.
The petitioner, Ciaran Redmond, was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder and other offenses in connection with his attack on a fellow prisoner in the Victorville facility. The convictions were affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in 2018 in a 2-1 decision, with the majority taking judicial notice that the prison is on federal land.
Transfer of Land
Yesterday’s panel—comprised of Judges Marsha S. Berzon and Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Senior Judge Carlos Bea—saw potential merit in Redmond’s contention that a transfer of land during World War II from California to the United States was not finalized. The panel had before it documents indicating that a meeting of the minds between state and federal officials might not been have reached, accounting for the transfer apparently not having been recorded in San Bernardino County.
A Sept. 29, 1944 letter from the Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson to California Gov. Earl Warren, purportedly accepting a transfer of two fields recited that the federal government would have exclusive jurisdiction, while other evidence showed that California only intended that it have partial jurisdiction. A Sept. 27, 2002 letter from the California Lands Commission noted that at the time, California Government Code Section 120 required California’s Governor to file the United States’ acceptance with the county recorder in the county in which the property was located” which did not occur.
There was also uncertainty whether, if a transfer was effectuated, the prison is on a field that was transferred or one that wasn’t.
Might Be Merit
The memorandum opinion says:
“[W]e agree that there could well be merit to the claim that the transfer of jurisdiction from California to the federal government was not legally effectuated, as there is a lack of proof that the 1944 War Department letter was recorded in San Bernardino County.”
However, it adds, the lawyer can’t be expected to anticipate a view to be formed by a court in the future. Although the 2010 District Court opinion “was not binding precedent,” the opinion says, “it was not unreasonable for Redmond’s attorney to decide not to argue Victorville’s jurisdictional status to the jury or in a motion for a judgment of acquittal to the trial court, as there was reason to believe that either would be unsuccessful given the outcome” in the earlier case.
“The Sixth Amendment does not require attorneys to pursue arguments that have a low probability of success,” it adds.
Redmond claimed a violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s mandate in Brady v. Maryland that potentially exculpatory evidence not be withheld from the accused, and the two letters had not been provided to him. The panel noted that the letters were part of the record in the 2010 case and if the defendant there had been able to locate them, Redmond should have been able to do so, also.
The case is Redmond v. United States, 21-55142.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company