Lloyd v. Hickman

111 F. App'x 514
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 21, 2004·No. No. 03-56386; D.C. No. CV-99-12152-SVW(Mc)·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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,6 cases in which the failure to allow cross-examination violated the Confrontation Clause by depriving the jury of facts necessary for its credibility determination.7 This case is distinguishable because the jury heard all of the facts that the foreclosed line of cross-examination would have disclosed and consequently the jury was not deprived of any facts upon which to base its credibility determination.8 The Confrontation Clause demands no more than this. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lloyd v. Hickman, 111 F. App'x 514 (9th Cir. 2004).

111 F. App'x 514 (Lloyd v. Hickman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lloyd v. Hickman, Warden
544 U.S. 929 (Supreme Court, 2005)