Charles Franklin Murdoch, Junior v. Roy A. Castro, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

Good Law
365 F.3d 699·2004 WL 720247·64 Fed. R. Serv. 248·2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 6418
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 5, 200402-55650California3,671 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trott, J.

. Petitioner Charles Murdoch appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Murdoch challenges the district court’s decision that the California trial court’s attorney-client privilege ruling, which barred him from seeing or using a purportedly exculpatory letter written by a government witness to the witness’s lawyer, did not deprive him of his constitutional right to cross-examination guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We vacate the order of the district court denying Murdoch’s petition, and remand the ease for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I

Standard of Review

We review the district court’s denial of Murdoch’s § 2254 habeas petition de novo. Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2000). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AED-PA), § 2254 petitions “shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in. State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim — (1) resulted in a.decision that was contrary to, or involved an .unreasonable application of, clearly…

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.