Cannon v Trammell

Cannon appealed the district court’s refusal to hold a hearing on his claim of juror misconduct and for denying his habeas claim that he was denied his right to testify. The panel affirmed. It held that Cannon failed to act diligently in his state post-conviction proceedings as he did not collect affidavits from his family members who claimed to see juror misconduct. The panel affirmed on the right to testify issue holding the district court permissibly found Cannon’s attorneys credible and concluding they told Cannon about his right to testify and did not attempt to stop him, gave cannon adequate advice on his right to testify including predicting an evidence of an earlier assault conviction and Cannon’s escape from custody just before he killed the victim would come in on cross examination as impeachment. The panel also agreed with the district court that Cannon would not have made a good witness based on contradictions of his testimony at the habeas hearing and the other record evidence and his inability to handle cross examination.