Richard Quilopras v. James Yates

MEMORANDUM

Richard Quilopras appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The California Court of Appeal determined that the trial court did not violate double jeopardy principles when it declined to apply collateral estoppel to bar Quilopras’s prosecution. This determination was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Because the two trials did not involve the same defendant, Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), did not control. What is more, the Supreme Court has rejected the application of nonmutual collateral es-toppel in criminal cases. Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 , 100 S.Ct. 1999 , 64 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980).

The California Court of Appeal determined that the exclusion of evidence regarding James Murphy’s acquittal did not deprive Quilopras of his right to confront witnesses or present a complete defense. This determination was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Unlike…