Martin v. Carey
This text of 89 F. App'x 80 (Martin v. Carey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Jerry Martin seeks a writ of habeas corpus because the trial court refused to appoint an expert on eyewitness testimony. This issue was dealt with di[81]*81rectly in Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882 (9th Cir.1990), in which we held, among other things, that a claim such as Martin’s is barred under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). See Jackson, 921 F.2d at 885-86. Martin has failed to demonstrate that Jackson no longer controls. Therefore, the petition is denied.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
89 F. App'x 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-carey-ca9-2004.