Christopher Stacy Pool v. Earl B. Dowdle

834 F.2d 777 Christopher Stacy POOL, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Earl B. DOWDLE, Respondent/Appellee. No. 86-2172. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 13, 1987. Decided Dec. 15, 1987. Ron Kilgard, Phoenix, Ariz., for petitioner-appellant. Barbara A. Jarrett, Phoenix, Ariz., for respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before HUG, NELSON and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. NOONAN, Circuit Judge: 1 Christopher Stacy Pool appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. His case has been ably argued on appeal, but we affirm the decision of the district court. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 2 In 1982 Pool was a thirty-year-old produce salesman. He was out on bail pending trial for assault. He had been convicted in 1977 of possessing marijuana and had served a three year sentence of probation. 3 On the evening of February 19, 1982, Pool was driving his father's Toyota in a deserted part of Yuma County, accompanied by his friend Brian Twist. Twist had invited Pool to go rabbit-hunting and Pool had brought a gun with him; but Twist suggested that Pool first aid him in planting two marijuana plants and as they…

Christopher Stacy Pool appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. His case has been ably argued on appeal, but we affirm the decision of the district court.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In 1982 Pool was a thirty-year-old produce salesman. He was out on bail pending trial for assault. He had been convicted in 1977 of possessing marijuana and had served a three year sentence of probation.

On the evening of February 19, 1982, Pool was driving his father’s Toyota in a deserted part of Yuma County, accompanied by his friend Brian Twist. Twist had invited Pool to go rabbit-hunting and Pool had brought a gun with him; but Twist suggested that Pool first aid him in planting two marijuana plants and as they drove they looked for a place to plant the plants.

Paul Connolly, a deputy sheriff of Yuma County, was working that night for a private employer, Camille Allec, patrolling for pay to catch thieves in Allec’s citrus groves. Connolly had worked in this capacity for two years and had made about thirty stops or arrests. He drove a “beat up” Yuma County Sheriff Department’s 1969 Ford pickup truck, not readily identifiable as a police vehicle. He himself was wearing levis, boots, and…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Pool sought to introduce expert testimony relevant to whether he recognized Connolly as an officer. The expert witness would have explained the standard police procedures used by officers to identify themselves to frightened suspects. From this evidence, the jury might have inferred that reasonable people do not always recognize police officers. This insight might have led the jury to conclude that Pool did not recognize Connolly as an officer because Connolly failed to use the standard procedure to identify himself.

Excluding the relevant expert testimony was constitutionally valid. The sixth amendment does not require the admission of all relevant evidence. Rather, courts may constitutionally exclude evidence if society’s interest in fair and efficient trials outweighs the defendant’s interest in presenting the evidence. Perry v. Rushen, 713 F.2d 1447, 1451-52 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 , 105 S.Ct. 137 , 83 L.Ed.2d 77 (1984). In this case, the state’s interest in excluding evidence on collateral issues was legitimate. The trial court could reasonably have feared that the expert testimony would divert the jury’s…