Gloria Barajas v. Karen Wise, Parole Agent

Good Law
481 F.3d 734·2007 WL 865536·2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6796
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 23, 200706-15494California2,581 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bright, J.

In August 1998, a Fresno County, California, Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner-Appellee Gloria Barajas (“Barajas”) of conspiring to sell, possessing, transporting, and offering to sell heroin based on the testimony of an undercover informant. She was sentenced to three years in state prison. Her direct appeals failed, as did her state habeas petition. In February 2006, a federal district court granted Bara-jas’ habeas petition, holding that the state trial court’s refusal to order production of the informant’s current and former addresses violated the Confrontation Clause. This appeal by RespondenL-Appellant parole agent Karen Wise (“the state”) followed.

We conclude that clearly established federal law requires the prosecution to provide reasons specific to the case in litigation if it declines to disclose the names and addresses of key witnesses. In this case, the testimony of the informant represented the only evidence against Barajas, and the state provided no reasons specific to this case why it should not disclose the information. In accepting the state’s arguments, the state court applied a standard that was objectively unreasonable. We affirm the grant of…

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.