Monday, August 06, 2012

Jackson v. State of Nevada, No. 09-17239 (8-6-12) (Reinhardt with Murguia; dissent by Goodwin).
In habeas, the 9th concludes that the district court erred in denying relief to petitioner. The petitioner was convicted of sexual assault in state court (Nevada). The trial court had precluded evidence that the complainant victim had made false accusations of rape previously. The court ruled it was immaterial. This was error. It was also error for the state courts to rule that the petitioner's counsel had failed to give advance notice of bringing in past accusations as required under state law to allow for a hearing.. His counsel had alerted the state of his intent by providing the information. The decisions of the state court violated the petitioner's right to mount a defense, and excluded highly relevant and material evidence. The state court's decision was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Dissenting, Goodwin argued that lack of notice was really an IAC claim, and that the state court's application of its notice requirement was reasonable under AEDPA.

Congratulations to Lori Teicher, AFPD, in the Nevada Office (Las Vegas).

U.S. v. Pineda-Moreno, No. 08-30385 (8-6-12) (O'Scannlain with N. Smith and Wolle, D.J. from the S.D. Ill).
This case involved attaching tracking devices to the underside of cars. The police placed tracking devices while the defendant's car was either on the street on in the defendant's open driveway, with no privacy signs. The case was on cert when the Supremes remanded in light of Jones. Assuming that such searches now would be unreasonable under Jones, the 9th still upholds the searches because, under precedent at teh time, the police were acting in "good faith" and had followed circuit precedent.


Post a Comment

<< Home