Barbara McNeiece v. Mary Lattimore

Good Law
501 F. App'x 634
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 18, 201209-56058California642 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Barbara Ann McNeieee appeals the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258 , and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Doody v. Ryan, 649 F.3d 986, 1001 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc). McNeieee claims that her Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the state trial court admitted excerpts of an autopsy report into evidence through a pathologist who had not conducted the autopsy and the pathologist testified in reliance on the autopsy report. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), we must reject McNeiece’s Confrontation Clause claim unless the state court’s adju dication resulted in a decision that either (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Here, the trial court admitted into evidence, as a business record,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.