Slim Manai v. Elvin Valenzuela, 660 F. App'x 502

In 2007, Slim Manai was convicted by a California jury of first-degree burglary, forcible oral copulation, sexual battery, assault with a deadly weapon, and criminal threats.
At trial the court barred Manai from cross-examining two victims (Suzy and Claudia) about whether they were romantically/sexually involved, and excluded a third witness’s testimony on the same topic under California Evidence Code § 782 (rape-shield law).
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the evidentiary rulings; the California Supreme Court denied review. Manai filed a federal habeas petition alleging Confrontation Clause and Due Process violations for denying cross-examination and defense evidence.
The district court denied habeas relief; the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction and reviewed under AEDPA, applying the deferential § 2254(d) standard to the state court’s last reasoned decision (the Court of Appeal).
The Ninth Circuit concluded the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and that any error would have been harmless given extensive corroborating evidence (victim testimony, injury photographs, 911 call, testimony from a prior similar victim).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause — denial of cross-examination about an alleged sexual relationship between victims	Manai: preventing cross-examination deprived him of confronting accusers and could have affected jury’s assessment of credibility	State: excluded evidence had low probative value and high risk of undue prejudice/confusion; trial court has latitude to limit cross-examination	Court: State court decision reasonable under Van Arsdall; exclusion did not violate Confrontation Clause, or any error was harmless
Due Process / right to present a complete defense — exclusion under rape-shield law	Manai: exclusion impeded his right to present a complete defense and challenge bias	State: rape-shield protection and trial-court balancing properly applied to exclude evidence	Court: Exclusion was within trial court discretion and consistent with Chambers; no due process violation shown
Harmless error and prejudice assessment under AEDPA/Brecht	Manai: excluded evidence could have significantly changed jury impression	State: other testimony and corroborating evidence limited prejudice; defense elicited evidence of closeness between victims to show bias	Court: On de novo review any error would be harmless under Brecht given strong corroboration and other evidence

Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (limits on cross-examination evaluated by whether exclusion might significantly affect jury’s impression of witness credibility)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (due process includes right to confront and call witnesses but those rights are not absolute)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (standard for harmless error in federal habeas review)
Hebner v. McGrath, 543 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2008) (de novo review direction cited)
Merolillo v. Yates, 663 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 2011) (factors for assessing prejudice in Confrontation Clause context)