692 F.3d 910
9th Cir.2012Background
- Fenenbock appeals district court denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition following state pretrial proceedings and trial in Hawkins Bar, CA (1991) for first-degree murder.
- R.H., a minor witness, was in state custody with CPS due to neglect; prosecutors sought and defense sought pretrial access to R.H.
- Trial court found no prosecutorial interference with R.H.’s pretrial access and allowed limited cross-examination; CPS decisions were independent.
- Defense argued pretrial access was a substantive due process/right to confront or complete defense; Petitioner claimed coaching and extensive pretrial access by prosecutors.
- Appellate review under AEDPA; state court decisions challenged on merits; claim resolved on state evidentiary grounds and later examined de novo under AEDPA.
- Court affirmed: no absolute right to pretrial access, no prosecutorial interference by the government through CPS, and reasonable limits on cross-examination were permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial access right to R.H. | Fenenbock argues for pretrial access as a due process/Confrontation right. | State argues no absolute right; decisions by CPS/guardian are independent. | No absolute right; no reversible error. |
| Prosecutorial interference via CPS | CPS actions, aided by social workers, indirectly interfered with access. | Interference denied; CPS acted in best interests of child. | No prosecutorial interference. |
| Cross-examination duration limits | Time limits on cross-exam improperly curtailed investigation of R.H.’s reliability. | Limit was reasonable; defense could still pursue essential topics. | Reasonable time limits did not violate the Confrontation Clause. |
| Collateral impeachment and extrinsic evidence | Impeachment via collateral out-of-court statements should be allowed. | Court acted within discretion to exclude; impact marginalized by other evidence. | Trial court acted within discretion; AEDPA does not require reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Black, 767 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1985) (witness may refuse pretrial interview; prosecution cannot force interview)
- Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 1994) (witness has right not to be interviewed; government interference prohibited)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (state interest in child welfare can outweigh confrontation rights in certain cases)
- United States v. Rouse, 111 F.3d 561 (8th Cir. 1997) (state custodian may deny pretrial access to a child witness)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (limits on cross-examination; opportunity for effective cross-examination not unlimited)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (limits on cross-examination; protecting witness safety and relevance)