Jimenez v. Allbaugh
702 F. App'x 685
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Michael Lee Jimenez was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of murder and related offenses and sentenced to life without parole; the OCCA affirmed.
- Jimenez filed a federal 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition raising: Confrontation Clause challenges (admission of preliminary-hearing testimony; expert testimony allegedly relying on a non‑testifying expert’s report), prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error.
- A magistrate judge recommended denial; the district court adopted the recommendation, denied relief and denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
- Jimenez sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit, which reviews whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s resolution under the AEDPA deferential standard.
- The Tenth Circuit held most claims non‑debateable on the merits per the magistrate judge’s report, but provided extended analysis of the Confrontation Clause claim involving expert testimony that may have relied on a non‑testifying expert’s report.
- The panel denied a COA, denied leave to proceed IFP, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of preliminary‑hearing witness testimony — Confrontation Clause | Jimenez: admission violated his confrontation rights. | State: admission was permissible; no constitutional error requiring relief. | Denied COA — reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s resolution. |
| Admission of expert testimony that may have relied on non‑testifying expert’s report — Confrontation Clause | Jimenez: testifying expert relied on a non‑testifying expert’s report, violating Crawford/ confrontation rights. | State/OCCA: testifying expert conducted independent investigation, did not testify to the non‑testifying expert’s opinions or introduce the report; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Denied COA — under AEDPA deference, OCCA’s factual finding of independent basis and its legal conclusion were not reasonably debatable. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Jimenez: prosecutor’s conduct violated due process. | State: no misconduct requiring reversal. | Denied COA — district court’s denial not reasonably debatable. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel / cumulative error | Jimenez: counsel was ineffective; cumulative errors warrant relief. | State: counsel’s performance and cumulative errors did not meet Strickland or justify relief. | Denied COA — claims fail under AEDPA and are not reasonably debatable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (establishes AEDPA standards for “contrary to” and “unreasonable application” analyses)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for granting a certificate of appealability)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits federal habeas review to the record before the state court)
- United States v. Pablo, 696 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir.) (discusses expert testimony and Confrontation Clause issues)
- United States v. Kamahele, 748 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.) (testifying expert may give independent judgment even if partly based on inadmissible evidence)
- United States v. Maxwell, 724 F.3d 724 (7th Cir.) (recognizes limits on Confrontation Clause where testifying expert provides independent conclusions)