Thursday, June 09, 2011

Ocampo v. Vail, No. 08-35586 (6-9-11) (Berzon with Canby and Noonan).

In a lengthy and comprehensive opinion, the 9th finds a violation of Crawford and the right of confrontation. The police testified as to statements made by an identifying witness who did not appear at trial. The general nature of the testimony rather than explicit detail (regarding the investigation and an alibi defense) did not excuse the Crawford violation. It was prejudicial. And under AEDPA, the state's interpretation was unreasonable.

Thompson v. Runnels, No. 08-16186 (6-9-11) (Berzon with Goodwin; dissent by Ikuta; dissent from order denying rehearing and en banc).

This opinion replaces the opinion filed on Sept. 8, 2010. The 9th found a Seibert / Miranda violation in a state murder case. Ikuta dissented, arguing that Seibert was decided after the state appellate court issued an opinion. The dissent from the order denying en banc reads as a petition for cert to the Supremes for review.


Post a Comment

<< Home