Arrested, tried, and convicted for a a major robbery spree committed by Frost in 2003, (thirteen years ago) he was tried in state court, and the overwhelming evidence convinced the jury of his guilt. On appeal in state court, the justices denied his argument of “structural” error at the trial. Frost argued the trial court had refused to allow his counsel to argue the prosecution had not established its burden of proof, and, in addition he committed the robbery under duress. This inconsistent argument to the jury was denied by the trial judge whose decision was upheld in state court, and in federal district court, invoking habeas corpus. On appeal to the 9th Circuit, Frost argued the same “structural error.” Denied by the three judge panel. Reversed on en banc. Cert by the state granted..
The Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit in a short per curiam opinion and specifically criticized the 9th Circuit. On remand,the 9th Circuit panel arrogantly considered different legal argument: had the defendant been “prejudiced” by the trial court? Fortunately, despite its insolence, the 9th Circuit affirmed the conviction .
Some judges of the 9th Circuit are determined to ignore the Supreme Court and common sense. The evidence in the Frost Case was overwhelming. Frost even testified he was “under duress.” The jury obviously disagreed. Why reverse a jury verdict with a technical issue the jurors would have ignored? When will the Supreme Court divest the 9th Circuit in habeas corpus cases?