Medina
Medina v. Hornung
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
1. The California Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the trial court’s exclusion of Medina’s expert witness did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to compel witnesses. An accused “does not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence.” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 410 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988). In upholding the decision to exclude the expert’s testimony, the California Court of Appeal relied on a standard rule of evidence allowing for the exclusion of unreliable expert testimony. See People v. Ramos, 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1175 , 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892 , 938 P.2d 950 (1997).
2. The Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the jury instructions given in Medina’s case was not contrary to clearly established federal law. Courts must consider a challenged instruction within the context of the other instructions and the entire record. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). The Court of Appeal properly applied a similar standard. See People v. Frye, 18 Cal.4th 894, 957 , 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 , 959 P.2d 183 (1998).