Ruben Gomez v. Gary Sandor

MEMORANDUM

Ruben Gomez, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that the state trial court’s decision to exclude third-party culpability evidence on hearsay grounds violated his constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 750 (9th Cir.2009). Gomez argues that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was “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 neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, federal law as set forth in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). Unlike the excluded statements in Chambers , which were “in a very real sense self-incriminatory and unquestionably against [the de-clarant’s] interest[,]” id. at 301 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , the excluded portion of the statement here — that the declarant, Marco Moedano, acted “before anybody could…