Nasby v. McDaniel, No. 14-17313 (4-10-17)(Reinhardt w/Owens & Mendoza). "In his petition, Nasby asserts serious constitutional violations based on prosecutorial misconduct, the use of coerced testimony, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and errors in the jury instructions. The district court rejected Nasby's claims and dismissed his petition. Because it did so without obtaining or reviewing the record of the relevant proceedings in state court, we vacate and remand for its review of the pertinent state court record."
The 9th looks to Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1997), where the 9th held that the court must obtain and review the relevant portions of the record or conduct an evidentiary hearing on its own. This independent assessment is required for a meaningful review. Five other Circuits reached similar conclusions.
The 9th rejects the State's contention that AEDPA bars such review. As the 9th emphatically states: "[I]t is clear that in order to provide adequate habeas review as contemplated by AEDPA, the court is required to review the state court record." The court cannot simply rely on what the States says the record is.
The decision is here: