Gary Rosales v. Gabriela Najera

facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) & (2). We therefore reverse the district court’s

denial of Rosales’ claim that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to move to

suppress evidence on the ground that the police violated the Fourth Amendment

when they entered his mother’s apartment.

The state court unreasonably determined that Rosales failed to raise

attenuation in his state habeas petition. Contrary to the court’s finding, Rosales did

raise attenuation. The state court also violated clearly established federal law by

erroneously placing the burden on Rosales to establish that attenuation did not

apply, rather than on the government to establish that it did apply. See Brown v.

Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 604 (1975) (concluding that “the State failed to sustain the

burden of showing that the evidence in question was admissible under Wong Sun

[v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)]” as sufficiently purged of the taint of the

primary illegality).

Because the state court’s decision is contrary to clearly established federal

law, we review Rosales’ claim de novo. See Marks v. Davis, 106 F.4th 941, 968

2 (9th Cir. 2024) (“When a state court’s adjudication of a claim is…