Day

MEMORANDUM **

W.A. Duncan, a warden for the State of California, appeals the federal district court’s grant of habeas relief to Dane Allen Day on the ground that the State of California admitted hearsay evidence against Day in violation of the Confrontation Clause.

Federal courts may grant habeas relief if a state court determination was either an objectively unreasonable application of United States Supreme Court precedents or if it contradicted those precedents. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) & (e) (2000). Objective unreasonableness is more than mere error or clear error. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). State court ignorance or omission of applicable Supreme Court precedent is not per se objective unreasonableness. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 11 , 123 S.Ct. 362 , 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (per curiam).

We look to California’s last reasoned decision, the decision by the California Court of Appeal. See Shackleford v. Hubbard, 234 F.3d 1072 , 1079 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2000). That decision recognized that Peggy Evans had given important trial testimony recounting statements made by her friend Charlene Martinez, with whom she cleaned houses. Those…