Stephen Reitz v. Charles Harrison

MEMORANDUM

The state appellate court’s denial of Reitz’s claim that the trial court violated his due process rights by limiting the testimony of his expert witnesses was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Defendants do not have an absolute right to present evidence relevant to their defense, see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690-91 , 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986), and the state court neither invoked a “per se” evidentiary rule, see Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 56-57, 62 , 107 S.Ct. 2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987), nor so drastically limited Reitz’s ability to examine his expert witnesses as to raise due process concerns, see Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973).

The state court’s denial of Reitz’s Confrontation Clause claim was not contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Here, none of the casual remarks by Eva to friends and family were “testimonial” within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51-52 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), or Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), because the…