Richard Clark v. Kevin Chappell

Ninth Circuit

Richard Clark v. Kevin Chappell

948 F.3d 1172

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 2020

Docket14-99005

StatusPublished

This text of 948 F.3d 1172 (Richard Clark v. Kevin Chappell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Clark v. Kevin Chappell, 948 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD DEAN CLARK, No. 14-99005 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 3:97-cv-20618-WHA

KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. ORDER

Filed January 31, 2020

Before: Consuelo M. Callahan, Sandra S. Ikuta, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges.

Order 2 CLARK V. CHAPPELL

ORDER

The opinion in this case, published at 936 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2019) is hereby amended as follows: 936 F.3d at 971, delete “and infects the jury as a whole” so that the sentence reads “Taking the ‘surrounding circumstances’ into consideration, when the juror’s improper communication with a non-juror interferes with the juror’s role as a juror, it raises a credible risk of affecting the outcome.”

With this amendment the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petition for rehearing may be filed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI