Noel Reyes-Mauro v. Brigitte Amsberry
682 F. App'x 595
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Reyes-Mauro, an Oregon state prisoner, petitioned for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation at his state criminal trial.
- The State conceded there was a confrontation error at trial; the sole federal question was whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals held the error harmless under Chapman and the Ninth Circuit reviews that determination under the deferential § 2254(d) standard (per Ayala).
- Reyes-Mauro argued the state court improperly relied on testimony that was the “fruit” of the confrontation violation and thus should have been excluded from the harmlessness analysis.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded the Supreme Court has not applied a fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree rule to Confrontation Clause errors, so the state court’s approach was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
- The court also held that even excluding the contested testimony, the remaining evidence (eyewitness descriptions, ex-girlfriend’s implicating testimony, and physical evidence) rendered the error harmless under Brecht.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Confrontation Clause violation required relief | Reyes-Mauro: error occurred and testimony that was the fruit of that error must be excluded from harmlessness review | State: conceded Confrontation Clause error but contends it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Court: Error conceded; harmlessness is the controlling question |
| Whether the state court unreasonably applied federal law by including "fruit" evidence in Chapman analysis | Reyes-Mauro: the Court of Appeals should have applied a fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree exclusion for tainted testimony | State: no such exclusion required; Chapman harmlessness may consider cumulative evidence | Court: Supreme Court has not extended fruit doctrine to confrontation errors; state court’s approach was not unreasonable |
| Whether, after excluding disputed testimony, the error was prejudicial under Brecht | Reyes-Mauro: excluding the tainted evidence shows actual prejudice | State: other admissible evidence was strong and cumulative, so any error was harmless | Court: Even excluding challenged testimony, remaining evidence made the error harmless under Brecht |
| Whether federal habeas relief is available under § 2254(d) given deferential review | Reyes-Mauro: seeks relief despite state-court harmlessness finding | State: § 2254(d) limits habeas relief to unreasonable applications | Court: Under Ayala and § 2254(d), petitioner did not show the state court’s harmlessness determination was unreasonable; habeas denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for federal constitutional errors)
- Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015) (deference to state-court harmlessness determinations under § 2254(d))
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (standard for actual prejudice in collateral habeas proceedings)
- Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) (limits on federal habeas relief where state-court harmlessness determinations are reviewed)
- Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219 (1968) (distinguishable Fifth Amendment confession context; not controlling here)
- Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2003) (addressing cumulative-evidence harmlessness analysis)
- Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2002) (harmlessness evaluation principles in habeas cases)
- Brewer v. Hall, 378 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2004) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine not extended to Confrontation Clause context)