*2 TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER Oрinion; Dissenting CURIAM Opinion by Judge TALLMAN. * Lay, The Honorable Donald sitting by designation. P. Senior United Circuit, Judge Eighth States Circuit for the rights, process Hall’s due evidence violated
PER CURIAM: required. and a new trial is Harold prisoner state California jury of convicted Coleman *3 Nola killing for the of murder degree I.
first al- was based The conviction Duncan.1 custody August on taken into Hall was confession, ob- entirely on most 17, 1985, unrelated to the robbery for a an custody in for Hall was tained while in an placed He was Duncan murder. however, confession, crime. unrelated “informant’s jail known as area of the subsequent po- as suspect, rather 5, 1985, based September row.” On that various as- revealed investigation lice informants, po- from information received untrue. clearly Unable of it were pects regarding possi- lice interviewed Hall Hall to connect any physical find in murder. Hаll Duncan’s ble involvement murder, upon relied to the visiting a that while told Detective Crocker jailhouse aby provided two documents Vermont, he observed and friend at 48th Lee, informant, to corroborate Cornelius alley. female in the body of a dead “jailhouse notes” These Hall’s confession. later, days while also stated that two Hall testimony at trial without (cid:127)were admitted Terry at Jerry Knox and Ross talking with authenticity. their as to by the informant salon, brag Knox beauty he heard to be series purported The notes dumped and her he had killed a woman Lee and answers between alley. body in an however, Hall; Lee confess- after or innocuous innocent ed he had submitted inter- Crocker September On then erased and Hall and questions to photo and showed him two viewed Hall Hall had written his after alterеd them of Knox and lineups containing pictures make them incrimina- answers order photos correctly Hall identified Ross. testimony confirmed ting.2 Expert interview, During Knox and Ross. the documents. made on erasures had been that Knox and Ross Hall told the detective the fal- testimony regarding hearing After stat- and stabbed Duncan. He raped had notes, sification of with Knox and that he was in the car ed originally tried the who had judge trial Duncan’s they transported Ross when trial was neces- that a new case concluded alley. body dumped re- Appeal Court of sary. The California Arneson subse- Detectives Crocker and versed, not proven that Hall had finding pris- Knox was in quently discovered that false, believing apparently the notes were Sep- on at the time of the murders. On falsity judge had not found state 11, 1985, Detectives Croсker and tember that the Today we hold California either. jail. again Hall at the Arneson interviewed an unrea- decision was Appeal’s Court of time, Hall police gave For the first light the facts in sonable determination They thereafter con- Miranda warnings. to the state of the evidence information, and told him with this of this material fronted The falsification court. example, changed Lee testified that he de- 2. For convicted of the second 1. Hall was also Rainey jury gree you're David and the question "Homeboy, you do think murder special case, of murder circumstances found the robbery going get any time on the rape multiple of a during the commission case,” "possi- responded had to which Hall special and the cir- This conviction murders. ble,” you guys gril killed the to read "After appeal latеr overturned on cumstances [sic], you V-Dog two did kill her brother People insufficiency evidence. [sic]?” 1994). (Cal.App. April B062985 they lying. you guys him knew he was This time when put alley, her who murder, implicated her[?]” himself seen stating beauty shop that he arrived at the A: “Everybody was their the whole early 47th and Vermont in the Street Neabior Hood people.” even old morning hours on June 1985. Duncan Q: you killing “Did gril on 49th being held there a back room and Vermout. why you And did tell men, Terry four one of whom was Ross. they the ploice you know did it[?]” raping Hall and the other men took turns “(That yes) A: because They said took Duncan. The other men turns stab- will if ly.” book me I Duncan. Hall Duncan twice bing stabbed (E.R. 252.) *4 in the arm. The men then Dun- placed trial, At the defense offered evidence body can’s in the trunk of a car and three that Hall’s two oral statements were con- them, Hall, including alley drove to the tradictory, and his written statement con- dumped and body gave there. Hall tained multiple facts that contradicted evi- position body of the description that dence from the crime According scene. to police matched the crime scene descrip- confession, Hall’s written Todd initi- Smith returning tion. The men then discussed to ated and directed rape Duncan’s and mur- kill Rainey, because he knew that his sis- der, and body her was transported ter, Duncan, Nola was with them. Hall Smith’s car from the beauty parlor to the the group point left at that and heard later alley. questioned by Smith was Detective Rainey that had been killed. Detective Hall, Arneson. knowing Smith admitted writing, Crocker reduced this statement to any but knowledge denied of or involve- signed and Hall it. ment the murders. Smith’s car was September On Arne- Dеtective by police; examined his tires did not Lee, given son was two an documents prints match the of those found in the Ange- inmate on “informant’s row” in Los alley, and a forensic examination of his car County les Jail. The two documents were any did not reveal linking it to passed notes which Lee indicated had been the crime or to Hall. Smith was never Hall, back and forth between himself and charged. arrested or with posing questions Lee and Hall an- confession, According to Hall’s the back notes, swering them. The contents of the beauty parlor room of the where Duncan errors, including spelling grammatical raped was and murdered at 47th was were as follows: Vermont. At the owners of the beau- Q: you guys gril, “After killed the did ty that salon at location testified that it you V-Dog kill her brother room, had no back and that there had two[?]” signs entry, never been of a forced “possible.”
A: blood, any or evidence of bizarre occur- Q: “Okay, you guys befor killed her. rence. The owners that they testified you
Did she in joy makeing her by police. were not contacted Detective you make love you to how could Arneson testified that he did not search beauty tell[?]” salon because he never believed it was the scene of the crime. A: saying “Cause she was she did.” Q: “Hey, boy police you home want Hall’s Duncan confession stated that was
and V-Dog killing gril bad for that repeatedly raped prior to her murder. At on 49th Listing you trial, and Vemout. pathologist the forensic testified that going are to have to tell stop people opinion that Duncan had not was you gril. Okay killed that engaged activity sexual for at least two confession, discrepancies to According her and the death. prior hours stabbed, her in it. did contained Duncan was when off, proceedings brassiere was call Lee. Post-trial revealed open, her blouse was foren- to call naked. The chose not was otherwise and she this, prose- stating testify at the trial after he had told contradicted pathologist sic Dun- would what he surprised indicated that cutors be examination that his say. jury convicted had been moved or removed had to clothing can’s counts, in her brassiere both and he was sentenced life death. Cuts after her chest, parole. prison possibility her without the wounds on matched stab prob- she was pants on the indicated blood interview, Subsequently, in a post-trial her when she ably wearing pants deliberately having Lee admitted to fabri- stabbed. by changing *5 own, рromised manslaughter testi- Hall submitted and was a convic- murder on sug- mony pending from various individuals tion on his murder count. may killed for Duncan have been gested 1994, In a September Hall filed habeas PCP) (bad to a man selling water” “bad in the on the petition state trial court basis Powell, also Theadry who was named that his conviction a result of false as or Junior. known June jury. to the trial evidentiary hearing were admitted as held an on At Lee’s notes court the Following hearing, the defense coun- matter. the adoptive admissions over foundation, granted corpus of a objections sel’s lack writ of habeas and the notes as a hearsay, characterization of ordered new trial. admissions, prosecu- and relevance.3 hearing, At the Lee evidentiary testified Hall to the connecting tion’s evidence questions pencil, that when he wrote the statements, of crime consisted his two oral very he and applied pressure, little he statement, ob- and the notes his written questions positioned to leave blank no physical
tained from Lee. There was where he write in space could later new Hall to the connecting forensic evidence questions. Once he received the note back murder, Duncan’s or to the area where answer, with an from Hall he would erase body was found. original question in a and write differ- by prosecu- question
Lee’s notes were used
ent
above Hall’s answer
closing
incriminating.4
tion in
to corroborate made the answer
Hall
argument
its
and
notes,
exhibits,
admitting
jailhouse
questions
3.
In
the court
a
two
total of four
jury:
four answers.
instructed the
(Tr. Tran.4637.)
gentlemen, by way
explana-
Ladies and
tion,
dоcuments, people's exhibits
these two
evidentiary hearing
May
At an
conducted
14,
single
both
in this
contained
1995,
16,
question
the first
testified that
by
people
are offered
on the
sheet here
you
originally
"Homeboy,
asked:
do
think
questions
theory
represent
case,
asked
you're going
get any
time on the
Lee,
caps,
case,”
in all
Mr. Cornelius
written
robbery
responded "pos-
to which Hall
defendant,
given
Mr.
and answers
(Evidentiary Hr'g May
sible.”
Tr.
1995 at
Hall,
96.)
caps,
in not
written
all
total
two
Lee testified that in the second
something
two
answers on each of the
he asked if Hall knew about
presented testimony
subsequently proven
prosecution
both
to have been altered
state,
experts.
from document review
Hall’s ex-
from their original
as evidence in his
al-
pert
types
identified three different
trial.
It is the use of these twо exhibits as
erasures, distur-
terations on the exhibits:
evidence at Hall’s trial that presents seri-
fiber,
overwriting.
bance of
First,
ous concern.
Hall claims that these
exhibits constitute false and material evi-
retrial,
prior
to the
the Califor-
upon
based,
dence
which his conviction was
Appeal,
Appellate
nia
Second
Dis-
Court
requiring a new trial.
One,
trict, Division
reversed the trial
court, holding
prove by
that Hall did not
Illinois,
In Napue v.
360 U.S.
preponderance of the evidence that
(1959),
process, go false evidence to incriminating allows to Hall. Lee testified where state 1194(cit 87, 83 applied Id. at S.Ct. he questions, uncorrected. when he wrote Kansas, 317 U.S. 63 S.Ct. ing Pyle v. very light pressure. (1942); Napue, 360 U.S. L.Ed. 214 87 was under- judge The state habeas trial 1173). addition, at 79 S.Ct. story, and found standably leery of Lee’s “material” suppression held that Court liar,” also noted “plainly him to be but in a results coming that “we have more than Mr. violation, process regardless of wheth due have sсientific evidence into this case. We good part there is faith on the er letters, the corre- that establishes that Brady, 373 83 prosecution. U.S. him in- spondence between and Mr. Hall A if “the required new is S.Ct. indeed, cludes some erasures.” And any ... reason testimony false could testimony handwriting experts pro- of both judgment likelihood have affected the able support testimony. vided for Lee’s Both States, jury....” Giglio v. United era- experts testified that there had been 763, L.Ed.2d documents, on the and that sures (1972) Napue, (quoting 360 U.S. areas erasure due to might have missed 1173). 271, 79 S.Ct. many environmental factors that affect the The prosecution detection of alterations. Falsity B. opinion was consistent with Lee’s expert’s judge recog- As the state habeas trial for alter- testimony regarding his method nized, factual threshold expert stated thаt ing documents.
whether the notes were indeed false evi-
if
pressure
soft lead was used and little
dence. Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and
he
not be able
detect
applied,
would
Penalty
Effective Death
Act of 1996
the erasure.6
(“AEDPA”),
may grant
re-
federal
adjudication:
testimony,
supported by
if
Lee’s
as
lief
the state court
evidence, led the state trial court
(2)
scientific
resulted in a decision that was based
necessary.
that a
to conclude
new trial was
on an unreasonable determination of the
*7
however,
appeal,
On
the California Court
presented
in
of the evidence
light
facts
that the trial
proceeding.
Appeal apparently
the State court
of
believed
finding
did not make a
that the notes
Packer,
Early v.
123 S.Ct.
false,
were
and thus did not accord the
(2002);
with the
but whether
its ab- match the evidence of the
and the
trial,
descriptions
he received a fair
understood
position
sence
and location of
resulting
worthy
body
a
a verdict
public knowledge.
as
were
Once
Kyles Whitley,
confidence.”
U.S. Hall’s statements were shown to contain
L.Ed.2d
490 multiple
discrepancies, the
notes
(1995) (reversing
remanding
where
importance.
took on added
state,
evidence,
undisclosed
was
this,
Recognizing
closing argument,
“material,” meaning
to be
it
found
the prosecutor urged
jury
rely
defendant,
favorable to the
and the
was
corroborating
the notes as
evidence of
at trial
absence of this evidence
under-
guilt.
responding
Hall’s
to the defense
mined confidence in the outcome of the
confession,
attacks on
prosecu-
trial).
stated, “you
tor
have a handwritten note
defendant,
by the
which the defense didn’t
In addressing Hall’s claim of false
try
explain,
where he also admits liabili-
evidence,
of Appeal
the California Court
ty.”
used Lee’s notes to
deciding that
*9
bility
jailhouse
of the
notes and the absence of
AEDPA, although emphasizing proper and
cognizant
Lee as a
fully
witness. We are
findings,
due deference to the state court’s
did
power
the limited review
of the federal courts
not eliminate federal habeas review. Where
Supreme
real,
under AEDPA and the
Court deci
there are
credible doubts about the ve-
Packer,
3,
Early
sions of
v.
537 U.S.
123 S.Ct.
racity
person
of essential evidence and the
362,
(2002),
it,
judgment experts the testified that some While an it should issue unconditional tions that on the notes had been questions of the unless the state corpus (a writ of habeas altered to a small extent letter here a new trial within grants Hall there), experts the also testified and man- of this court’s days of the issuance that there were no alterations date.9 incriminating por- the most some of that questions
tions of the and none of questions the had been erased their TALLMAN, Judge, dissenting. Circuit claimed; entirety, as Lee and by the Despite repeated admonishment (cid:127) that he forced the vic- Hall confessed Court of this Supreme States United him, orally copulate tim to stabbed again once jurisprudence, habeas court’s arm, right the victim twice on the ignoring the my colleagues persist position knew the location and the the in order to AEDPA of review standard in, body was left and knew that the state court deter- invalidate a reasonable wounds on her victim suffered stab in a 1985 murder case. guilt mination of chest, all of which was corroborated court’s reading think after One would evidence from the crime by physical clearly that record established opinion results, and autopsy scene and could following two facts: only by have been known the victim’s (cid:127) testimony regarding expert murderers. notes at the state erasures on the suffiсiently facts Because these overlooked buttressed proceeding court collateral guilt Hall’s confession of corroborate changed claim that he had all Lee’s appellate court determi- render the state on the notes after reasonable, objectively respectful- I nation answers, Maj. atOp. see provided ly dissent. 982; 979-980, 980, I (cid:127) to homicide de- that Hall’s confession habeas relief grant at We cannot “suspect,” tectives was so id. the state court’s determination “curious case unless “contradictory,” id. uncorroborated,” an unreasonable determina id. at was “based on largely light of the evidence tion of the facts “multiple and full of inconsisten- inaccuracies,” id., proceeding.” in the State court that it was cies and 2254(d)(2). In Torres v. value and 28 U.S.C. prоbative of little or no (9th Cir.2000), 1103, 1108 Prunty, 223 F.3d have discredited should been governing the we found that the standards jury. who, present jurist being at Hall’s hearing virtue of preliminary testified unique position to understand were authentic or when he later swore was in a notes falsely absence. impact incriminate the notes and Lee’s were altered to miscarriage justice, To avoid a Hall? decision that a new 9. Because of our jury should make trial court concluded that question of necessary, we do not reach the determination in a new trial with subject the introduction to cross- whether present as a witness testimony also violated nothing without Lee's opinion *10 trial, determination” clause of state court collateral and that “unreasonable his 2254(d)(2) equivalent § to the stan testimony by was bolstered scientific evi- appli thе “unreasonable governing dards affirming dence that he had erased all the 2254(d)(1). §of At cation” clause incriminating questions. The record time, improperly case law instructed our paints picture. a different application” of that an “unreasonable Su Lee preliminary hearing testified at the meant that preme precedent Court before Hall’s criminal trial. Lee con- application clearly erro state court’s firmed that he had questions written the Tran v. Lindsey, F.3d neous. See Van the notes to Hall while were on (9th Cir.2000). 1143, 1153-54 “informant’s Angeles row” the Los subsequently That standard correct- County jail. Although the notes were ad- application” “unreasonable for- ed. Our mitted during not deferential enough mulation was decided not to call Lee as a witnesses. Instead, state courts under AEDPA. Then, at pro- the stаte court collateral Supreme Court told us “unreasonable ceedings, flipped. He there claimed just more than application” means “clear error,” questions he had erased all the after but instead means decision that is “objectively Lockyer unreasonable.” v. Hall had answered them. Lee asserted — Andrade, ——, -, preliminary that he had lied at the hearing (2003). L.Ed.2d 144 We because two homicide detectives threat- (even error clear “conflat[e] are not to ened to kill his mother. He also insisted error) unreasonableness,” with for the for- that at deputy attorneys least two district give proper mer “fails to deference to state had him instructed to lie. courts.” Id. hearing judge, understandably, Yet, in Torres the rule remains unblem- found Lee to be than less credible: governing ished: the standards unreаson- Cornelius Lee has testified this case. 2254(d)(2) § for are the same ableness If Cornelius Lee were to tell me what for standards unreasonableness under was, I time it would still want to look at 2254(d)(1). Thus, § the “objectively un- the clock. reasonable” standard reaffirmed Lock- I do not believe much of what he said. 2254(d)(1) yer applies § equal with He plainly a liar. I almost wanted to question presented today force to the have the bailiff 2254(d)(2). clean the witness stand governed by § after he left. Moreover, AEDPA, under state court (E.R.244-45.) Only one conclusion can factual be findings presumed are correct. 28 2254(e)(1). Only if a reached from this petitioner credibility U.S.C. assessment: presents “clear and convincing to, evidence” nothing Lee testified whether of an may erroneous factual determination preliminary hearing or at the сollateral we a state court finding. overrule factual proceedings, should be believed without Id. corroborating evidence. court, therefore, The state was left with
II only the scientific A hearing. the collateral expert, The state’s Montilla, Manuel testified that: majority’s description of the state (1) he was “certain” that none of the proceeding implies collateral Lee, conscience, troubled on the notes had finally totally been came truthfully erased; clean and testified at the *11 (2) that because there place took were went on to find were erasures that the original the note letters, pages some alterations on not total phrases and around and because Lee testified at never lines; petition for a writ of habeas (3) found in the no erаsures were corpus should be granted. have to “Listing you going are phrase Appeal The State Court of California you gril”; that killed that stop people tell reversed, finding that the were not notes (4) question in the only the erasures that the lower explained false. The court in you guys put alley, her “Okay when found that the notes expressly court never and “u” in “y” seen her” was the who appellate The were “false.” court held “y” “alley”; and in “you” and the “a” that the scientific evidence established that (5) question in the only the erasures changed the notes not as substantial were you gril, killed the did you guys “After as Lee claimed. The court reasoned ly kill her two” were V-Dog and brother place that the that did take are erasures “V-Dog” in and “gril,” “g” the “1”in the struggling with with consistent someone “MU”; the “k” in erasing ques entire spelling, not someone (6) only phrase erasures the (Cal. No. B09432 tions. See In Re: you want and “Hey, boy police home 23, 1996). Ct.App. July “V-Dog”; and V-Dog” “g” was the issue with the state majority The takes (7) had kUling” “bad for phrase the notes appeUate court decision some erasures. majority The were not “false.” states Kuhn, that: Kurt testified expert, pro- ... Appeal the “California Court premise, ‘agree- ceeded from an incorrect (1) conclusively erasures were found no court that the notes ing’ with the trial guys Mlled you in the “After evidence, not instead of ac- false kill her gril, you V-Dog did and implicit the trial court’s find- knowledging two,” only possible and the even brother Maj. ing they Op. were.” “1”in “gril”; erasure was the majority playing games The semantic (2) ques- erasures were found no assumptions it over the gloss order gril on 49th you Mlling tion “Did by the record. unsupported makes that are Vermout, tell the why you and did that the trial court found It is true it”; you did ploice know part. equal- It is possibly *12 988 here, equated trial court say that But the trial court—if accepts
to one complete falsity. alterations with partial majority’s premise the evi- —found dence was false while finding also appellate accepted But the state court could not be believed and that the amount in part. that the notes were altered the fact significance of the erasures was reasonably appellate What the court took With dispute. these factual determina- implicit is the conclusion—if issue with established, appellate tions court sim- one at all—that this ren- indeed there was words, ply legal dered the notes “false.” other corrected the trial court’s error evidence, “unreasonable determination there was no and held that this under Califor- ” claims, majority as the but law, nia did not meet Hall’s burden to facts the significance instead a conclusion about falsity in justify establish order to habeas facts. agreed-upon relief. by And this conclusion the California reasonable, only This conclusion was not objectively Appeal was reasonable Court it was majority’s holding correct. The to- considers the when one standards it day ignores the proper appellate role the proceedings. must to state habeas apply played correcting court the trial court’s law, Hall had the Under California burden legal error. Even if one were to assume by that the notes were prove false that the trial court did find that the notes the evidence. preрonderance of See In re erased, completely based on the rec- Sassounian, 535, Cal.Rptr.2d 9 Cal.4th 37 appellate ord the rightly stepped court (1995). 527, P.2d 534 887 Based on and corrected the trial court’s erroneous proof, this burden of California courts re- factual determination. To believe that the ject “falsity” claims of when it is unclear notes are completely false is to believe whether evidence introduced at trial was Cornelius Lee and disbelieve the scientific See, completely e.g., false or not. In re evidence, something the record will not Roberts, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d Cal.4th 128 allow. The merely scientific evidence (2003) P.3d 174 (refusing erasures, shows minor and that none of the testimony label that was trial later recant- questions were entirety. erased their ed because it as “false” wаs not clear However one examines the California testimony, whether the or the recan- decision, Court Appeal’s it was well- tation, truth); actually was see also within the objective contours of reason- Croft, United 124 F.3d States (9th Cir.1997) ableness. To conclude say otherwise is to (holding testimony that trial simply really not “false” “unreasonable” because contradicts means “we dis- prior testimony). agree” proposition Supreme Court —a grant petition “So I because I think But whether Lee would or would not testi- [Hall] is innocent ... but because there fy, justice and whether that would serve in a this, player is a middle of all an obvi- trial, nothing new has to do with whether ously sleezy liar the name of [sic] Corneli- Thus, *13 quickly plowing after majority, exactly description tion. His matched how analysis, compounds “falsity” through body actually fоund. materiality by sub- discussing in its error appel- the state there inconsistencies Hall’s ver- judgment for Were stituting its court, impermissible.2 is also Yes. But does that make late which sion of events? Appeal of concluded: The California Court Hall’s confession worthless? Of course notes, not, event, pre- when one considers the independent especially any overwhelming evidence of Hall knew that someone there was cise details police He confessed to guilt. Hall’s in the murder could have participated who have inter- Duncan to that he forced majority’s gross generaliza- known. The arm, course, twice in the stabbed her of this information was tion that some her while others stabbed held her down simply is incorrect and “public knowledge” chest, body to the and drove her in the anywhere in the record. A unsupported He de- alley it was discovered. where body Duncan’s from the bystander seeing in which unique position scribed street could not have determined No more body was found. Duncan’s raped Duncan was or that she was stabbed his convic- support required twice the wrist. on ... tion. originally Hall’s criminal case Were majority 11. The holds In Re: in federal court and before us tried now. unreasonable. that this conclusion was review, question of whether the direct majority’s rhe- employing Instead of they were false—were assuming notes— Hall’s characterizing of strategy torical theory, be a close one. might, material adjectives and disparaging confession with unreasonable for the objectively But was it report what Hall simply I’ll generalities, of to conclude that Appeal California Court confessed to. not material when Hall the notes were states that Dun- signed confession physical evi- to the murder confessed orally copulate Hall. Lab can was forced to To dence corroborated confession? that Duncan’s mouth con- tests showed to answer it. ask the is tained semen. that he stabbed her twice Hall confessed Ill noted Investigators arm. right right on her often, Duncan had two stab wounds the letter in violation of both Too at trial indicates Evidence adduced wrist. AED- comity spirit AEDPA and the not have been able to see that one would embraces, mightily court strains PA this standing Duncan’s wrist unless cor- petitioner habeas grant a state court directly body. over Packer, See, Early v. 537 e.g., pus relief. L.Ed.2d 263 154 S.Ct. Duncan that he held
Hall confessed Visciotti, (2002); 537 U.S. chest was stabbed down while she Woodford (2002). 154 L.Ed.2d Duncan Investigators notеd by others. 2254(d), (1) § court subpart materiality majority assumes that 2. The 2254(d)(2). governed by objectively question of fact reasonable. decision is (2) subpart properly under Whether examined today we announce is a con- The decision improper operandi. modus
tinuation of not, public policy or
Be it sound through Congress. spoken
people have AEDPA, Congress severely has cir-
Under courts to power
cumscribed the federal
overturn state convictions. Under standards, we cannot substi-
these strict judgment
tute our for the state court’s Instead, like
judgment. case
challenging findings, state court factual passive a more and academic inqui-
ours is
ry: objec- is the state court determination case,
tively reasonable? This as the dis- found, surely
trict court falls within the
category that meet this standard. of cases majority’s contrary conclusion to to the nothing applica- short of a return pre-AEDPA
tion of standards —at best. longer respectfully
This is the law. I no
dissent. Joseph FORN,
Albert Petitioner-
Appellant, HORNUNG, Warden,
Thomas A.
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-55287. Appeals,
United States Court of
Ninth Circuit.
Argued March Submitted 2003. Sept.
Filed 2003.
As Sept. Amended cated the after written his an- attempted to show Hall had Hall also reason by someone else. swers. Lee he were committed testified murders Dun- from lied because the threatened to police information obtained Based on husband, lie, investigated her kill him and his if he did not who had mother can’s
Notes
false. No. Court, Justice Warren wrote for 1996)). (Cal.Ct.App. July B094232 “First, it is established that a conviction petition for review in the California through evidence, obtained use of false Supreme (People was denied. Court by representatives known to be such (Cal. 1996)). No. B094232 Nov. State, must fall under the Fourteenth Subsequently, Hall filed three state habeas Amendment, ... The same result obtains petitions, Supreme two in the California State, although when the not soliciting Court and one the California Court of evidence, false go allows uncorrected All Appeal. petitions three were denied. (internal appears.” when it Id. citations omitted). timely petition filed a for a writ of corpus habeas federal district court un- Hall does not claim that der 2254. He 28 U.S.C. raised several knew that the notes were false
assumed without
confession,
jury
corroborate Hall’s
but the
material,
and thus there was no clear
never had the opportunity to hear Lee
holding
respect
with
to this claim. Later
testify and to assess his demeanor and
however,
opinion,
addressing
when
veracity.
finding
similar
required
claim which
complete
the notes
defense of
established a
precisely why
This is
the state trial
innocence, the court
that there
stated
was
(who
judge
presided
had
original
over the
“overwhelming
guilt”
of Hall’s
in
trial) concluded that the notes were mate-
dependent of the
To the extent
notes.
rial
jury’s
decision. There is a
deference,
finding is entitled to AEDPA
it
reasonable likelihood that the introduction
was also an unreasonable determination in of the falsified notes
jury’s
affected the
light of
the evidenсe
at Hall’s verdict in this
Giglio,
case.
U.S.
trial.
154, 92
S.Ct.
We have no confidence
in the verdict under these circumstances.
absolutely
physical
There was
no
or fo-
Kyles, 514
more examination. Our does Clause. judgment the Confrontation respect or less than
erased (3) “partial” erasures were found some never, implicitly trial court ly true that the “okay you guys phrases in the befor notes were explicitly, found that okay gril, and “Mlled that when Mlled” Indeed, testified. false in total as Lee you.” repudiated expert doing so would have testimony, superior with this Faced something credited testimony and Lee— have scientific judge concluded: “We refused to do: expressly the trial court letters, that the evidence that establishes testimony is finds that[Lee’s] “The Court correspondence [Lee] between that it is except credible extent erasures. What includes some [Hah] (Em- evidence.” supported by scientific erased, those replaced what those erasures added). on the trial court’s Based phasis erasures, how extensive the erasure were part, grant- notes in suspicion about the subject possible possi- evi- are all to debate conclusion petition. ed the (E.R.245.) this record is regarding falsity1 from judge ble dentiary conflict.” based ing relief for conviction possible, likely, conclu- state habeas and even 1. Another trial court Critical to the on false evidence. is that the trial court sion from record at trial: that Lee never testified govern- was the fact simply the standards misunderstood
were admitted were false. Lee, only way us and I think that the we can contrary majority's reasoning, to the it is not justice have here is for [Lee] all of his necessary to infer that the trial court found parade jury sleeze before a [sic] of our Instead, per- the notes to be false. another hap- fellow citizens and let them decide what fectly reasonable inference is that the trial pened here.... Since this new information simply erred as a matter of law in about material items evidence that could applying the standards for habeas relief and trial, well have affected the outcome of the subsequently corrected on review. and since was not called [Lee] either side as a witness the Court [criminal] (E.R.246.) grants the Petition....” repeated stab wounds on her Lockyer, suffered See condemned. expressly has — at-, at 1175. chest. body Hall confessed that Duncan’s B ground unique posi- on the in a positioned