CASTILLO v. ARIZONA
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
1010
IV. Conclusion
I would grant the writ and remand for a new trial. The evidence that was admitted was so prejudicial that despite the limiting instructions, the evidence still had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury‘s verdict, particularly considering there was scant other evidence presented of Castillo‘s alleged guilt. Under AEDPA, the state court decision was therefore contrary to clearly established federal precedent. Therefore, I respectfully DISSENT.
YAHOO! INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LA LIGUE CONTRE LE RACISME ET L‘ANTISEMITISME, a French association; L‘Union des Etudiants Juifs de France, a French association, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 01-17424.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 10, 2005.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge:
Michael Traynor, Esq., Cooley, Godward, Castro, Huddelson & Tatum, San Francisco, CA, Neil S. Jahss, Esq., O‘Melveny & Myers, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Plaintiff-Appellee. E. Randol Schoenberg, Esq., Burris & Schoenberg, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Robert A. Christopher, Esq., Coudert Brothers LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Mark D. Lebow, Esq., Sokolow Carrerras LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant. Ann Brick, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Amicus.
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court1, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.
Marvin Howard BOCKTING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert BAYER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-15866.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed Feb. 22, 2005.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 14, 2004.