Herbert William Chipman v. James Mercer, Chief Probation Officer

Good Law
628 F.2d 528·7 Fed. R. Serv. 1283·1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 14350
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 4, 198079-2621California223 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kennedy, J.

Herbert Chipman was convicted of burglary in state court. Chipman’s conviction was upheld by the Third District Court of Appeal of the State of California, and a petition for hearing was denied by the California Supreme Court. Chipman then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The district court granted the petition on the ground that Chipman’s sixth amendment right to confront witnesses was violated by the state trial court’s refusal to permit cross-examination of a witness for bias. We affirm.

The name of the witness in question was Mrs. Ketchum. She testified that Chipman was near the scene of the burglary under suspicious circumstances. There was no other eye witness testimony. Circumstantial evidence linked Chipman to the burglary, but Mrs. Ketchum’s testimony contributed significant additional information. She testified that she lived in the neighborhood and that on the night of the burglary she heard footsteps proceeding to and, later, from the victim’s house. She said she recognized them as Chipman’s because of the noise made by the platform shoes he often wore. She testified further that…

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.