Garcia

Garcia v. Alameida

Good Law
185 F. App'x 649
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 19, 2006No. 04-56750California498 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Anthony Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Garcia contends that his due process rights were violated when the victim, Jenny Aguilar, was coerced into giving false testimony about the assault. This contention lacks merit. The California court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Even if she feared prosecution and the prosecutor threatened removal from a state drug treatment program if she did not testify, Aguilar’s testimony was voluntary. See Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 42, 53 , 100 S.Ct. 906 , 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980) (holding that co-conspirator wife’s testimony was voluntary despite a grant of immunity and assurances of lenient treatment).

Garcia next contends that his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated when defense counsel was prevented from questioning a witness, Gloria Montes. The California court’s decision to exclude some of Montes’ testimony was not contrary to or an unreasonable application…

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.