Brown v. McCollum, 696 F. App'x 875

Lonnie Dee Brown was convicted in Oklahoma state court of sexually assaulting his eight-year-old granddaughter and sentenced to life; state appeals failed and he filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the granddaughter S.B.’s testimony and prior statements; she testified twice and at times became unresponsive or refused to answer defense counsel’s questions.
Defense counsel recalled S.B. during the defense case; she answered some defense questions but later was uncooperative on repeated or sensitive questioning; the trial court did not restrict cross-examination and declined to declare her unavailable.
On appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), Brown argued the refusals denied his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right to meaningful cross-examination; OCCA held Brown had an adequate opportunity to confront the witness.
Brown argued OCCA’s decision conflicted with Davis v. Alaska; the federal district court denied habeas relief, and the Tenth Circuit granted a COA limited to whether Brown was denied a meaningful opportunity to confront his accuser.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding OCCA’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether S.B.’s refusal to answer some defense questions violated Brown’s Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine his accuser	Brown: S.B.’s refusals prevented meaningful confrontation, like exclusion of impeachment evidence in Davis	State/OCCA: No limits were placed on cross-examination; S.B. answered many questions and defense used her silence in closing; Brown had an adequate opportunity	Held: Denied — OCCA’s ruling was not contrary to Davis and provided adequate opportunity to cross-examine

Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (precluding defense from exposing facts relevant to witness bias violates effective cross-examination)
United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (1988) (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for cross-examination, not perfect effectiveness)
Woods v. Donald, 135 S. Ct. 1372 (2015) (for § 2254(d), clearly established law means holdings of the Supreme Court)
House v. Hatch, 527 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir. 2008) (standards for § 2254(d) review and distinguishing contrary vs. unreasonable application)