German

German v. Lamarque

Good Law
225 F. App'x 574
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 19, 2007No. 05-16635California447 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*575 MEMORANDUM **

Geary Melvin German (“German”) petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the admission of hearsay statements at his murder trial violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At trial, several witnesses testified that German’s accomplice, James O’Malley (“O’Malley”), told them that German hired him to Mil German’s wife. The state trial court admitted this testimony under the declarations-against-interest exception. Cal. Evid.Code § 1230. The California Court of Appeal held that the statements were properly admitted, because they contained particularized guarantees of trustworthiness as required by Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 125 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999).

As the Supreme Court recently made clear, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), does not apply retroactively on collateral review. Wharton v. Bockting, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 1176-77 , 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007). German’s Confrontation Clause claims, which originate from his trial in 1993 and direct appeal in 2001, are therefore analyzed pursuant to the applicable case law…

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.