Hamburger v. Allbaugh
679 F. App'x 665
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Isaiah Hamburger was convicted in Oklahoma state court of lewd acts with a child under twelve; the OCCA affirmed on direct appeal.
- Hamburger filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition raising: improper admission of a forensic interview of the victim, Confrontation Clause violation, and that he should have been charged with a lesser offense.
- District court denied the § 2254 petition and declined a certificate of appealability (COA); Hamburger sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit.
- Trial court admitted a recording of a forensic interview; the OCCA found the interview sufficiently reliable under state law and admissible.
- The victim testified at trial and was cross-examined; defense identified minor inconsistencies but the jury convicted.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether any asserted errors were cognizable on federal habeas review and whether they denied due process or violated the Confrontation Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of forensic interview (state-law reliability requirement) | Admission violated Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2803.1 because interview lacked certain reliability indicia (e.g., no discussion of truth vs. lies). | State courts reasonably applied reliability factors; absence of a truth/lie colloquy does not make statement federally unreliable. | Denied — state-law error not cognizable on federal habeas; no federal due-process violation shown. |
| Confrontation Clause | Admission of recorded interview violated right to confront because victim allegedly incompetent or unavailable for effective cross-examination. | Victim testified and was cross-examined; defendant had opportunity for effective confrontation; competence under state law is not a Confrontation Clause bar. | Denied — confrontation right satisfied; opportunity for effective cross-examination was afforded. |
| Competency to testify | Victim should have been deemed incompetent, undermining confrontation. | Victim was reasonably determined competent under state law and testified. | Denied — no authority that Confrontation Clause is violated when witness is competent and subject to cross-examination. |
| Charging lesser included offense (oral sodomy) | Prosecutor should have charged a more specific, lesser offense. | Prosecutors have discretion to choose charges when probable cause exists; state-law charging rules not grounds for federal habeas relief. | Denied — charging decisions fall within prosecutorial discretion; not cognizable on federal habeas. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas relief not available for state-law evidentiary errors)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standards for certificate of appealability)
- Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (factors for reliability of hearsay from child declarants)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause framework; noted as abrogating some aspects of Wright)
- Revilla v. Gibson, 283 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir.: due process standard for prejudicial evidentiary error)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (Confrontation Clause: defendant must be afforded opportunity for effective cross-examination)
- Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective cross-examination, not any particular result)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (prosecutorial charging discretion)
- United States v. Parsons, 967 F.2d 452 (10th Cir.: prosecutors need not charge under a lesser statute solely because it carries a lighter penalty)