Brian George v. John Haviland

Good Law
506 F. App'x 583
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 28, 201310-16873California426 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Brian George, who was convicted in state court on several charges associated with two separate shooting incidents, petitions for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . His petition — which is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AED-PA”) — cannot be granted unless the state’s adjudication was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); see Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). We affirm the district court’s denial of the petition.

1. George argues that the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury with CALJIC 2.21.2 violated his right to due process. That instruction allows jurors to “reject the whole testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely as to a material point.” This instruction was warranted because of the undisputed inconsistencies in the testimony of a key state witness, Jeremy Phillips. The state court reasonably concluded, however, that the error was harmless and…

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.