Juan Ramon Rodriguez v. Marion Spearman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN RAMON RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MARION SPEARMAN,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-16189
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01923-JKS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 15, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Davis v. Alaska limits a trial court’s discretion to preclude cross-
examination that directly relates to an eyewitness’s possible biases or motivations
to lie. 415 U.S. 308, 317 (1974). But “trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as
the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-
FILED
MAY 27 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice,
confusion of the issues” or relevance. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679
(1986). In this case, the California Court of Appeal reasonably concluded that the
victim’s lie about a collateral matter did little to shed light on her possible
motivations to lie about Rodriguez and that “delving into the issue [would be]
more prejudicial and confusing than probative.” Accordingly, the state appellate
court’s rejection of Rodriguez’s Confrontation Clause claim was not contrary to or
an unreasonable application of clearly established law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --