James C. Gaines v. RON DAVIS, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES C. GAINES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RON DAVIS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-16191
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01716-KJM-
CHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 17, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,** Judge.
Petitioner James C. Gaines appeals from the district court’s denial of his
habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We review de novo the district court’s
denial of the petition and for clear error the court’s factual findings in support of
that denial. Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 766 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
FILED
APR 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

1. The district court’s factual finding that Petitioner never asked the state
trial judge to admit Wright’s hearsay statement is not clearly erroneous. Petitioner
concedes that he did not make a separate request to have the statement admitted
notwithstanding the California hearsay rules. Instead, he contends that this request
was "subsumed in his request for judicial immunity" for Wright. But asking the
trial court to override hearsay rules is quite different than asking the court to
extend immunity for the witness who made the statement. Due process did not
require the state court to override California’s hearsay rules sua sponte and admit
Wright’s statement even though Petitioner did not ask the court to do so.
2. The California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply clearly
established federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), when it held that Wright’s
statement was not crucial evidence and that due process did not require its
admission. Petitioner contends that the exclusion of the statement was contrary to,
or involved an unreasonable application of, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284
(1973). Chambers established that the exclusion of testimony pursuant to state
evidentiary rules violates federal due process rights when that testimony bears
persuasive assurance of trustworthiness and is critical to the defense. Cudjo v.
Ayers, 698 F.3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 2012). The state court reasonably concluded
that at least the second prong is not met here.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --