Benjamin Flournoy, Jr. v. Larry Small

Good Law
681 F.3d 1000·2012 WL 1940220·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10847
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 30, 201211-55015California2,851 words

Opinion

Opinion

Clifton, J.

Benjamin Flournoy was convicted in a California court of one count of forcible rape and one count of assault with intent to commit rape. He appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Flournoy alleges two violations of his constitutional rights.

First, he contends that the trial court permitted a forensic analyst to testify based on the results of scientific tests performed and reports prepared by other analysts in violation of his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right. This claim fails because there was no clearly established federal law, based on decisions of the United States Supreme Court, that held such testimony to violate the Confrontation Clause in circumstances where the testifying witness participated in and reviewed the crime lab’s work, even though she did not personally conduct all the testing herself.

Second, Flournoy alleges that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment, due to the attorney’s failure to make an objection based on the Confrontation Clause to the analyst’s testimony. We conclude that the failure to object did not represent deficient…

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.