John Gary Arredondo v. George Ortiz

John Gary Arredondo appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Arredondo was convicted by a superior court jury in April 1999 of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury in violation of California Penal Code §§ 243(d), 245(a)(1). The only issue before us is whether the trial court violated Arredondo’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense by refusing to order a witness to testify after the witness invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to prior convictions and pending charges. As the California Court of Appeal’s decision upholding the trial court’s ruling did not run afoul of clearly established law as determined by the United States Supreme Court, we affirm.

I

Arredondo and Robert Reed lived in different rooms in an old hotel in downtown Los Angeles. They were friends and occasionally borrowed money from each other, but they got into a fight on the *780 evening of September 17, 1998. According to Reed, Arredondo appeared at Reed’s door and demanded that Reed repay $10. Reed, who was intoxicated, told Arredondo he did not have the money and asked…

concurring in the result:

I join the majority’s analysis of the duty of states to provide meaningful argument under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). I also concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the state courts here adopted a not unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Arredondo’s trial was, at bottom, a credibility contest between Arredondo and his alleged victim, Reed, that came down to this question: Which of these men threw the first punch and, therefore, was more likely the aggressor in the fight that ensued in Reed’s room? To help answer that question, Arredondo sought to call Jeffrey Hansen as a witness. Hansen was the only person at trial, other than Arredondo and Reed, who could offer the jury any direct perspective on this critical issue. Nevertheless, the trial judge excused Hansen from testifying, because Hansen planned to invoke the privilege against ■self-incrimination in response to certain questions on cross-examination by the prosecution. The California Court of Appeal affirmed.

Arredondo argues in part that the exclusion…

365 F.3d 778 John Gary ARREDONDO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George ORTIZ, Respondent-Appellee. No. 01-57166. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 7, 2003. Filed April 20, 2004. Karyn H. Bucur, Laguna Hills, CA, for the petitioner-appellant. Jason C. Tran, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for the respondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CV-01-00788-ABC(JTL). Before KOZINSKI, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. RYMER, Circuit Judge: 1 John Gary Arredondo appeals from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Arredondo was convicted by a superior court jury in April 1999 of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury in violation of California Penal Code §§ 243(d), 245(a)(1). The only issue before us is whether the trial court violated Arredondo's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense by refusing to order a witness to testify after the witness invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to…