NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ROBERT ROY GOFF, No. 11-35651
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00237-ST
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFF PREMO,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 11, 2012
Portland, Oregon
Before: B. FLETCHER and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, District
Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Western Louisiana, sitting by designation.
Oregon state prisoner Robert Goff appeals from the district court’s denial of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Goff was questioned by a Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department Detective
while he was in the hospital recovering from surgery. The Detective did not advise
Goff of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Goff was not
under arrest, but argues that he was in custody at the time of the questioning
because he was not free to leave the hospital due to medical holds that hospital
personnel had placed on him. Goff argues that the State’s use of what he said to
the Detective violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be used at trial to impeach
the defendant’s testimony. See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 224 (1971).
Goff’s statements to the Detective were used only to cross-examine Goff and in the
State’s rebuttal. The statements were not admissions of guilt and were used only to
impeach Goff’s prior testimony. Because the use of Goff’s statements for
impeachment was permissible, even if the statements were obtained in violation of
2
Miranda, there was no unreasonable application of Federal law as established by
the Supreme Court of the United States.1 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Even if we were to conclude that Goff’s statements should have been
suppressed entirely, we would conclude that their use at trial did not have “a
substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.”
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993); see also Anderson v. Terhune,
516 F.3d 781, 792 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The victim’s testimony at trial was
corroborated by photos of the victim’s injuries taken by police shortly after Goff
assaulted her the first time and by testimony about a second assault from the
victim’s daughter and neighbor. In addition, Goff essentially admitted his own
guilt in letters that he wrote to the victim after the incidents. The State also
impeached Goff with his statements to another police officer, the admissibility of
which Goff does not challenge.
We express no opinion as to the merits of Goff’s argument that he was in
custody for Miranda purposes when the Detective questioned him.
AFFIRMED.
1
At oral argument, Goff’s counsel asserted that the use of the statements for
impeachment was impermissible under State v. Isom, 761 P.2d 524 (Or. 1988).
Whatever the merits of this argument under state law, it is not a basis for federal
habeas relief.
3