Lloyd v. Hickman
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Patrick Lloyd appeals the district court’s denial of his writ of habeas corpus for an alleged Confrontation Clause violation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Lloyd’s claim was exhausted and is not procedurally barred.1 The California Supreme Court’s denial of a state habeas petition by citing In re Waltreus2 is not a dismissal based on procedural grounds.3
The trial court’s admission of pretrial testimony despite limitations on defense cross-examination did not run contrary to, nor was it an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent existing at the time of the state court’s decision.4 Lloyd relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall,5 and Davis v. Alaska,
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
111 F. App'x 514 (Lloyd v. Hickman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.