James

James v. Mitchell

Good Law
81 F. App'x 973
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 2, 2003No. 03-55338; D.C. No. CV-02-00397-MMMCalifornia1,184 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Habeas petitioner Lisa James appeals from the district court’s denial of the writ. She contends that her rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the state trial court’s admission of testimony by her deceased co-conspirator’s attorney Todd Rash stating that the decedent George Taylor had, in a pre-mortem jailhouse interview protected by the attorney-client privilege, implicated James in a conspiracy that culminated in the murder of her husband.

I

The district court’s denial of a habeas petition is reviewed de novo. Beardslee v. Woodford, 327 F.3d 799, 806 (9th Cir.2003). Our habeas review of a state court decision on the merits is circumscribed by The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). We may grant a petition for the writ only if the state court’s “adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court....” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) (2003) (enumeration omitted). Because the California Court of Appeal’s unpublished opinion in People v. James, No. E026718, 2001 WL 1284235 (Cal.Ct.App. filed Oct. 23,…

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.