Yu v. Ndoh

Background

Daniel Yu, a California state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking for federal habeas relief—a federal order challenging custody under a state-court judgment. A jury convicted Yu of six counts under California Penal Code § 288(a), and he was sentenced to 16 years in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied review.

Yu’s federal petition primarily claimed that his trial lawyer violated the Sixth Amendment by providing ineffective assistance. The respondent acknowledged that Yu’s claims were exhausted and that the petition was timely. The court therefore reviewed the California Court of Appeal’s decision under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Under that law, federal relief is available only when the state court’s merits decision was contrary to clearly established United States Supreme Court law, unreasonably applied that law, or rested on an objectively unreasonable factual determination.

Claims and analysis

Yu raised six ineffective-assistance claims:

1. Cross-examination: Yu argued that trial counsel failed to adequately question the child witness and her father about the timing and source of the allegations, their awareness of an argument between the father and Yu, and differences in accounts of the alleged incidents. The court concluded that the record showed substantial cross-examination, and that counsel’s decisions about further questioning were reasonable trial choices. Yu did not show that additional questioning would likely have helped him.

2. Credibility evidence: Yu argued that counsel should have presented evidence that the child had lied about matters such as homework, pushing her sister, and her nanny’s cooking. The court agreed with the state court that counsel reasonably could view these as minor matters that might appear petty or could make a defense witness seem biased. Yu also did not show a reasonable probability that this evidence would have changed the verdict.

3. Evidence about the residence: Yu argued that counsel should have called witnesses who could have testified about the layout and use of the family’s residence, allegedly showing that the incidents could not have occurred as described. The court found that counsel had investigated the potential witnesses and reasonably chose not to call them because their testimony could conflict with, or weaken, the defense evidence. Other witnesses had already supplied some of the proposed testimony, and Yu did not establish prejudice.

4. Expert testimony: Yu challenged counsel’s decision not to present experts concerning whether he showed signs of sexual deviance, whether deleted files could be recovered from electronic devices, and whether the child could have been influenced by her father. The court held that the state court’s rejection of these arguments was not objectively unreasonable. The proposed testimony was either potentially harmful, addressed an undisputed point, uncertain as to admissibility or content, or too speculative to show that the trial would probably have ended differently.

5. Good-character evidence: Yu argued that counsel should have presented more evidence about his lack of a criminal history and his relationship with his wife. The court found that the defense had already presented evidence of Yu’s character and family relationships. It concluded that the additional evidence would have been cumulative or of limited value and that Yu had not shown prejudice.

6. Closing argument: Yu argued that counsel’s closing argument was too brief and failed to address all of the defense’s points and weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. The court found that the argument presented a coherent defense theory, including the possibility that the child’s father had influenced her account, and addressed the alleged impossibility of the incidents. The state court’s conclusion that counsel’s argument was vigorous and consistent with the evidence was not objectively unreasonable.

The court also rejected Yu’s cumulative-error claim because he had not identified any individual constitutional error that could be combined with others to establish a constitutional violation.

Ruling

The court denied the § 2254 petition. It also denied a certificate of appealability, concluding that Yu had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. Judge James Donato ordered that the decision take effect on January 26, 2024.