Shaun Burney v. Ron Broomfield

── Shaun Burney v. Ron Broomfield ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHAUN KAREEM BURNEY, No.22-99002 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00546- v. FLA RONALD BROOMFIELD, Warden, OPINION Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 13, 2026 Pasadena, California Filed May 7, 2026 Before: Mark J. Bennett, Lawrence VanDyke, and Holly A. Thomas, Circuit Judges. Opinion 2 BURNEY V. BROOMFIELD SUMMARY* Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Shaun Burney’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his California conviction for murder. In a certified issue, Burney claimed that the trial judge was biased and engaged in judicial misconduct. The State responded that because the California Supreme Court denied the claim both on the merits and on procedural grounds, the deferential standard of review prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) applies, and the claim is procedurally defaulted. Because deciding whether Burney procedurally defaulted his judicial bias and misconduct claims would require the resolution of several complex preliminary questions, the panel exercised its discretion to proceed directly to the merits, which it reviewed de novo. Burney argued that the trial judge demonstrated bias against Burney and in favor of the death penalty. The panel held that Burney’s judicial bias claim fails on the merits. The trial judge’s comments do not demonstrate that the judge had either a personal interest or direct involvement in the proceedings. The judge neither relied upon knowledge acquired outside proceedings nor displayed deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible. In context, the challenged comments also do not show an intolerable risk of bias nor * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  BURNEY V. BROOMFIELD 3 create an appearance of impropriety, as the judge emphasized that the jurors had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt to find the defendant guilty and stressed the importance of serving as a jury member. In his judicial misconduct claim, Burney alleged that the trial judge’s behavior during voir dire and trial resulted in proceedings being conducted without dignity and respect. Burney cited various examples of what he described as racist comments, inappropriate jokes and banter, jokes about assaulting jurors, and sexist comments, rendering the proceedings fundamentally unfair in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The panel held that Burney did not demonstrate that the challenged comments rendered his trial so fundamentally unfair as to transgress constitutional limits. The comments do not appear to be adverse to Burney to a substantial degree and were not of sufficient gravity to warrant the conclusion that fundamental fairness was denied. Burney requested that the panel expand the certificate of appealability (COA) to include (1) his claims that his confession to the detectives should have been excluded at trial because it was involuntary and he did not validly waive his Miranda rights; and (2) his claim that the trial court’s admission of his codefendants’ allegedly “inadequately- redacted and self-serving statements” violated Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). The panel declined to expand the