Gupta

MEMORANDUM **

Raj Gupta appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application for habeas relief. After a trial in the Los Angeles Superior Court, a jury convicted Gupta of selling marijuana to an undercover law enforcement officer. The conviction was Gupta’s “third strike” and resulted in a sentence of 53 years to life. The California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court each affirmed his conviction and denied his subsequent petition for habeas relief.

For the reasons that follow, we hereby reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to grant Gupta’s application for the writ and order a new trial for the defendant.

We may grant habeas relief where a state court’s decision is “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or if the proceeding “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), (2) (2004).

We find that the state courts’ decisions permitting the government to withhold the…

In deciding not to disclose the confidential informant’s identity, the state trial court properly balanced the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 62 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). The Court of Appeal’s affirmance of this decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) and (2) (2004); Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of the district court.