Anthony Barron v. Mike Stainer

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Anthony Barron appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 . We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition, see Clabourne v. Ryan, 745 F.3d 862, 370 (9th Cir.2014), and we affirm.

The state trial court refused to admit impeaching evidence that a testifying officer had kicked Petitioner three times during his arrest. Petitioner claims that this evidence supports the inference that the arresting officer never saw Petitioner strike the victim with a knife but nevertheless gave false testimony in order to justify his use of excessive force and avoid discipline. The California Court of Appeal concluded that the exclusion of this impeachment evidence violated the Confrontation Clause. We treat that finding of constitutional error as established.

The Court of Appeal then concluded that this error was harmless. Whether we adopt deferential review under AEDPA or consider harmlessness independently under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), we agree with the state court. When analyzing the prejudicial effect of a Confrontation Clause…