Bradley Schwartz v. Charles Ryan

MEMORANDUM

Bradley Schwartz, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Schwartz contends that: (1) the introduction of hearsay testimony at trial violated the Confrontation Clause; (2) the prosecution engaged in multiple acts of misconduct that deprived him of his right to a fair trial; and (3) the trial court, in precluding him from presenting certain impeachment witnesses, violated his right to due process.

1.

Because the Arizona Court of Appeals denied Schwartz’s Confrontation Clause claim on the merits, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) precludes federal habeas relief unless this decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

The state court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law. First, the statements the admission of which Schwartz challenges were not hearsay: they were not introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted by an out-of-court declarant, but instead to show that the person who…