FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AARON L. COOPER, No. 10-16522
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01516-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Director
CDCR,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 17, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: B. FLETCHER,** HAWKINS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Betty Binns Fletcher, Senior Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, fully participated in the case and concurred in the judgment
prior to her death.
Aaron Cooper (“Cooper”) appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition
attacking his conviction for the murder of William Highsmith (“Highsmith”). We
affirm.
We review Cooper’s insufficient evidence claim under the doubly deferential
standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), and the Anti-Terrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), which requires deference to both the jury’s
verdict and the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that there was sufficient
evidence to support the verdict. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003)
(habeas relief appropriate only where the state court’s application of clearly
established law is “objectively unreasonable”) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.
362, 406 (2000)).
Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports Cooper’s conviction. Most
critically, the government offered evidence of motive; extensive eyewitness testimony
that Cooper participated in the abduction of Highsmith at gunpoint, during which
shots were fired; the opinion of a forensic pathologist that Highsmith died shortly after
his abduction from a gunshot wound to the head; and forensic testimony that clothing
associated with Cooper tested positive for gunshot residue. Viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution as required by Jackson, and with deference
to the state court decision as required by AEDPA, it was not objectively unreasonable
2
for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that the evidence was sufficient to
support Cooper’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.
3