Espinoza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS ESPINOZA, Case No. 19-cv-04693-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING HABEAS

v. PETITION

TAMMY FOSS, Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendant.

Espinoza’s habeas petition is denied. 1. The only way the trial court’s decision to admit gang expert testimony could be deemed a due process violation is if there were “no permissible inferences the jury may draw” from the testimony and it was “‘of such quality as necessarily prevents a fair trial.’” Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 920 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800 F.2d 1463, 1465 (9th Cir. 1986)). In this case—more so than most cases where gang expert testimony is admitted at trial—the evidence was probative. Aside from the gang expert testimony, the government introduced other evidence relating to the shooter’s motive and identity—the prior relationship between Martinez and Espinoza, their conversation outside the convenience store, the fact that mere minutes passed between the fight and the shooting, and the shooter emerging from the apartment complex across the street. The gang expert’s testimony…