Did the Ninth Circuit's clearly erroneous finding so depart from the accepted course of judicial proceedings as to justify summary reversal?

QUESTION PRESENTED On November 6, 2009, nineteen-year-old Andrew Valenzuela—along with David Padilla and Jessica Garcia—got in a car with a 32-year-old serial killer who later forced all three to their knees at gunpoint and told Valenzuela, “You're going to strangle [Padilla] or I’m going to shoot you.” Valenzuela eventually obeyed and was convicted of kidnapping and firstdegree murder. In this federal habeas case, Valenzuela contends that the trial court’s refusal to properly instruct the jury on his duress defense violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense. The Ninth Circuit, however, held that Valenzuela was not prejudiced by the trial court’s refusal to specifically instruct the jury that duress is a defense to kidnapping because there was “no evidence” that Valenzuela was under duress during the kidnapping. But the jury explicitly found that Valenzuela was “engaged” in the kidnapping when the murder occurred—the exact time it is undisputed that Valenzuela was “certainly” under duress. Did the Ninth Circuit’s clearly erroneous finding so depart from the accepted course of judicial proceedings as to justify summary reversal? U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 10(a). i