Jermaine Edward Casey v. Julie Brown

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant's
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERMAINE EDWARD CASEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JULIE BROWN,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-16594
D.C. No. CV-04-04749-PJH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
APR 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-16594 2
California state prisoner Jermaine Edward Casey appeals from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Casey contends that the trial court violated his due process and confrontation
rights by refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine a witness regarding
whether she had made prior false accusations of sexual assault. The record
demonstrates that the trial court considered legitimate state concerns in reaching its
decision, and therefore the California state court’s decision rejecting this claim was
neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme
Court law, nor was it an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see Fowler v. Sacramento County Sheriff’s
Dept., 421 F.3d 1027, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that trial court’s weighing
of legitimate state interests was not “contrary to” clearly established Supreme
Court law).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --