Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Hall v. Haws, No. 14-56159 (7-3-17)(Pregerson w/Bastian; dissent by Callhanan).  The 9th affirms the district court's order reopening a habeas under Fed R Crim P 60(b).  The affirmance did not run counter to AEDPA.  In this "extraordinary case," the order grants the same relief to this petitioner as to his co-defendant based on the same claim for the same error at the same trial.  The petitioner, proceeding pro se, had acted diligently.  The error arises from California's Jury Instruction 2.15, which allows an inference of guilt of murder from possession of stolen property with slight corroborating evidence.  The 9th agreed with the district court finding constitutional error and prejudice.

Callahan dissented, she argues that the case granting relief to the co-defendant, in the face of additional facts, was wrongly decided. The error was not constitutional; nor was it prejudicial.  The co-defendant was retried and convicted.  This decision runs counter to AEDPA deference.

The decision is here:


Post a Comment

<< Home