Robert Fenenbock v. Director of Corrections for Ca
681 F.3d 968
9th Cir.2012Background
- Robert Morris Fenenbock was convicted of first-degree murder in California state court for events surrounding Gary Summar's death in 1991.
- R.H., a minor and key prosecution witness, was placed in state custody by CPS after witnessing the murder and was interviewed by authorities.
- Defense sought pretrial access to R.H. and informal interviews; the guardian ad litem and CPS officials opposed, citing R.H.'s best interests and trauma concerns.
- Trial court conducted hearings; found ample evidence supporting the guardian’s decision to deny pretrial access, and later found no prosecutorial interference by the government.
- During trial, cross-examination of R.H. was lengthy; the court imposed time limits and narrowed topics to avoid delay and confusion.
- Fenenbock pursued federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief and issued a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to pretrial access to R.H. | Fenenbock alleges denial violated due process and possibly Confrontation Clause. | Access was appropriately denied; CPS decision and witness welfare outweighed; no prosecutorial interference. | No error; no prosecutorial interference; no clearly established due process violation. |
| Prosecutorial interference via CPS | CPS actions, aided by government social workers, impeded access to R.H. | CPS acted independently in the child’s best interests; not government interference in access. | No prosecutorial interference; CPS actions were independent. |
| Cross-examination time limits | Time limits on cross-examination violated the Confrontation Clause by abridging defense inquiry. | Time limits were reasonable; allowed substantial cross-examination; no constitutional violation. | Limits were reasonable; no Confrontation Clause violation under AEDPA review. |
| Collateral impeachment through out-of-court statements | Impermissible to preclude impeachment of R.H. via collateral statements by foster father. | Judge properly limited collateral impeachment to avoid confusion and undue time; no constitutional error. | Trial court acted within its discretion; no error under AEDPA standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Black, 767 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1985) (witness has right not to be interviewed; prosecution cannot compel interviews)
- Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 1994) (witness may choose not to be interviewed; limits on government intrusion)
- United States v. Gonzales, 164 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 1999) (government instruction to witnesses; limits on interference)
- Gregory v. United States, 369 F.2d 185 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (due process right to interview witnesses underpinning a fair defense)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Confrontation Clause limits; opportunity for effective cross-examination)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (limits on cross-examination; sworn testimony vs. protection of the witness)
- Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988) (bias and motive evidence; cross-examination scope)
- Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649 (2004) (unreasonable application standard for AEDPA)
- Holley v. Yarborough, 568 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (limits on cross-examination content; duration considerations)
- Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (deference to state-court decisions under AEDPA; implied adjudication of claims)