406 F. App'x 148
9th Cir.2010Background
- Lee appeals district court denial of her habeas petition; Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction; court affirms in part, reverses and remands in part.
- California Court of Appeal held severance proper; no due process violation from joint trial under Zafiro.
- California court also held exclusion of battered-women’s-syndrome evidence under Cal. Evid. Code § 352 did not violate due process.
- District court deemed Grounds 5–11 and Supplemental Grounds 1–4 procedurally barred under In re Dixon; district court’s Dixon ruling cited a faulty report.
- On appeal, Lee challenged Dixon’s independence/adequacy; Ninth Circuit remands for district court to consider contrary evidence with Bennett v. Mueller guidance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did failure to sever create a due process violation? | Lee argues severance was required and joint trial prejudiced her. | Lee argues no due process violation since joint trial presented overlapping defenses. | Not a due process violation; severance proper. |
| Was the exclusion of battered-women’s syndrome evidence due process error? | Lee contends exclusion deprived her of memory/reasonable defense explanation. | State contends exclusion did not strip opportunity to defend; evidence was not outcome-determinative. | Not objectively unreasonable; no due process violation. |
| Is Dixon independent/adequate state ground for procedural default? | Lee challenges Dixon’s status as independent/adequate ground for default. | Dixon remains a valid state-ground rule; district court misapplied analysis. | Remanded to district court to determine independence/adequacy with additional evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1993) (severance not violative absent risk to trial rights or reliable guilt finding)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (due process requires fair opportunity to defend when evidence is crucial)
- Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1996) (highly case-specific inquiry for evidentiary exclusion; not automatic violation)
- In re Dixon, 41 Cal. 2d 756 (Cal. 1953) (discussed as an independent/adequate state-ground rule)
- Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 2003) (used to frame remand for evidence on Dixon independence/adequacy)