Bowman

MEMORANDUM ***

1. We answer the certified question, namely whether the trial court violated due process by failing to grant Bowman a continuance to prepare a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of false allegations of sexual abuse against others made by the victim, in the negative. 1 The state court’s determination was neither contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;” likewise, it did not “resul[t] 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).

2. In respect to the other claims raised by Bowman, namely (1) post-trial forensic analysis of a taped pretext call shows that he did not confess to engaging in sex acts with the victim, and constitutes newly-discovered exculpatory evidence, (2) the state and district courts violated Brady by failing to order disclosure of records from a juvenile dependency proceeding that allegedly show that the victim made additional false accusations of abuse, (3) the district court failed to grant an…