Marquice Garrett v. Raymond Madden
20-55578
| 9th Cir. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- Marquice Garrett was convicted in California of three counts of home-invasion robbery; a jury found a gang enhancement under Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1).
- Prosecution alleged co-defendant Eddie Brodney McFadden was a member of the Pasadena Denver Lane Bloods (PDLB) and that the offense was committed for the gang’s benefit/at its direction/ in association with it.
- Officer Jordan Ling, a gang expert, relied in part on departmental records (Field Identification Cards, police reports) and his review of photos to link McFadden to PDLB; Detective David Duran identified individuals in photos based on his contacts.
- Garrett filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing Ling’s and Duran’s identifications relied on case‑specific testimonial hearsay, violating the Confrontation Clause, and that evidence was insufficient to support the gang enhancement.
- The district court denied relief; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo but under AEDPA deferential standards and affirmed, concluding any error was harmless and the evidence sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Ling’s reliance on departmental records to link McFadden to PDLB violated the Confrontation Clause | Ling used testimonial, case‑specific hearsay (Field ID cards, other reports) to identify McFadden as PDLB member, preventing cross‑examination | Any Confrontation Clause violation was uncertain under Williams and was harmless given independent evidence of membership | Court: State court ruling not an unreasonable application of federal law; any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether Detective Duran’s identification of photo subjects as gang members relied on inadmissible testimonial hearsay | Duran may have relied on case‑specific hearsay to identify individuals as gang members | Duran had independent, multiple personal contacts with identified men; identification was not shown to depend on testimonial hearsay | Court: Claim speculative; reasonable for state court to deny relief; harmless error given other evidence |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the gang enhancement under Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1) | Even if McFadden was a gang member, record lacked proof the robbery was for gang benefit/direction/association | Evidence (concerted action with a gang member, photos, Duran/Ling testimony, eyewitness calling McFadden a ringleader) permitted an inference of association/benefit/direction | Court: Viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, state court reasonably concluded evidence sufficient; Jackson standard satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2014) (standards for habeas review de novo alongside AEDPA constraints)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA unreasonable‑application and harmless‑error principles)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (limits and uncertainty as to when expert testimony using out‑of‑court statements implicates the Confrontation Clause)
- Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018) (look to the last reasoned state court decision in habeas review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence on direct review)
- Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199 (9th Cir. 1995) (speculative claims about witness reliance on hearsay insufficient for habeas relief)
- People v. Albillar, 244 P.3d 1062 (Cal. 2010) (gang‑enhancement law; concerted action may not alone prove gang purpose but can support inference)
- People v. Garcia, 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 399 (Ct. App. 2016) (post‑Albillar authority on inferences from joint criminal conduct)
- People v. Leon, 197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 600 (Ct. App. 2016) (same)
- People v. Perez, 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 820 (Ct. App. 2017) (expert testimony can support gang‑enhancement findings)