Jon Arnold Woodard v. John (craig) Turnbull

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JON ARNOLD WOODARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN (CRAIG) TURNBULL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-35207
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00089-RRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 30, 2012**
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jon Arnold Woodard appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Woodard was convicted in Alaska state court of first-
degree robbery and second-degree murder after forensic analysis, eyewitness
FILED
SEP 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

identification, accomplice testimony, and other evidence all identified Woodard as
the man who robbed a Carrs grocery store and killed a security guard. Woodard
appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition, claiming miscellaneous
purported errors in his trial violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
Under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637–38 (1993), habeas relief is
warranted when “trial error” has occurred only if the error substantially influenced
the verdict. With respect to the shackling, to the extent there was error, it did not
“ha[ve] a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s
verdict.” Larson v. Palmateer, 515 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). All of the errors Woodard asserts occurred
are trial error, none of which, even cumulated, could have substantially affected the
verdict given the overwhelming forensic evidence of Woodard’s guilt.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --