Frederick Thiecke v. Scott Kernan
695 F. App'x 209
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Frederick Thiecke was convicted by a jury in California of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison after advancing a diminished-capacity defense.
- At trial Thiecke offered expert testimony (Dr. David Foster) about his abusive upbringing and relied in part on hearsay statements to support the diminished-capacity theory.
- The trial court limited the extent to which Dr. Foster could relate certain hearsay and excluded several items of evidence regarding the victims’ background (methamphetamine traces, pornographic tapes, alleged prior solicitation of murder) and some evidence of Thiecke’s alleged abuse by the victims.
- The California Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, rejecting Thiecke’s federal due-process arguments about exclusion and unequal admission of hearsay and evidence.
- Thiecke filed a federal habeas petition raising due-process claims; the district court denied relief under AEDPA; the Ninth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Thiecke's Argument | State/Prosecution Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding hearsay relayed by defense expert deprived Thiecke of due process | Trial court improperly barred Dr. Foster from relating critical hearsay about Thiecke’s abuse that supported diminished capacity | Excluded hearsay was not as trustworthy or directly exculpatory as Chambers; court properly limited testimony | Rejection affirmed — exclusion did not unreasonably apply Chambers; no due-process violation under AEDPA |
| Whether prosecution’s broader elicitation of hearsay on cross violated due process | Prosecutor was given unfair latitude to elicit hearsay from Dr. Foster, undermining defense | Admission did not offend fundamental fairness; defense could elicit similar material on redirect | Rejection affirmed — no extreme unfairness; any error non-prejudicial |
| Whether exclusion of victims’ background/lifestyle evidence violated constitutional right to present a defense | Evidence (methamphetamine, porn tapes, prior solicitation) was probative of motive/context and should be admitted | Evidence had marginal relevance and risked prejudice/confusion; exclusion was proper under Holmes balancing | Rejection affirmed — court reasonably found low probative value; exclusion permissible |
| Whether exclusion of evidence of Thiecke’s abuse by victims was categorical error | Trial court barred introduction of abuse evidence, impairing defense | No categorical prohibition was issued; trial allowed some testimony and expert opinion based on abuse history | Rejection affirmed — no clear abuse of discretion; any error harmless given other evidence of abuse presented and overwhelming guilt evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (exclusion of trustworthy, critical hearsay can violate due process)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (Chambers limited to its facts and circumstances)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (due process implicated only by evidence that is extremely unfair)
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (limitations on evidence and hearsay relevance to due process)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (trial courts may exclude evidence when probative value is outweighed by prejudice/confusion)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (standard for harmless-error review in habeas cases)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (presumption that state court adjudicated federal claim on merits)
- Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013) (state standards at least as protective allow AEDPA deference)