Brandon Wolcott v. Kathleen Allison

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Brandon Lee Wol-cott appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition challenging his California conviction for rape. He argues that: (1) the state trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony interpreting the victim’s blood alcohol level violated his right to present a complete defense, as well as his right to cross-examination; and (2) the trial court’s refusal to permit cross-examination of the victim about her refusal to speak with defense counsel before trial violated his right to cross-examination. He also raises several uncertified claims. We affirm.

1.Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Wolcott must demonstrate that the state court’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” or “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). The state courts’ refusal to admit expert testimony interpreting the victim’s blood alcohol level was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of…