# (HC) Goodwin v. Allison

> District Court, E.D. California · May 16, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11052770

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** May 16, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11052770

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “the requirements of due process frequently 24 vary with the type of proceeding involved”

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 HERBERT DEON GOODWIN, JR. Case No. 1:22-cv-00298-JLT-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PETITION FOR WRIT OF
13 v. HABEAS CORPUS AND DECLINE TO
ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF
14 KATHLEEN ALLISON APPEALABILITY1

15 Respondent. 14-DAY DEADLINE

16 (Doc. 11)

17

18 On April 18, 2022, Petitioner Herbert Deon Goodwin, Jr. (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner
19 proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging three grounds
20 for relief (“Petition”). (Doc. 11). On July 19, 2022, Respondent filed an answer (Doc. 19),
21 arguing Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief, and lodged the state court record in support
22 (Docs. 17, 17-1 through 17-10). After receiving an extension, Petitioner filed a traverse on
23 November 15, 2024. (Doc. 26; see Doc. 25). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned
24 recommends that the district court deny the Petition and decline to issue a certificate of
25 appealability.
26
27
1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
1 I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 A jury in the Fresno County Superior Court convicted Petitioner of (1) pimping related to
3 victim S.M.; (2) pandering by encouraging related to victim S.M.; (3) human trafficking to
4 commit another crime related to S.M.; (4) pimping a minor over 16 years of age related to victim
5 A.J.; (5) pandering by encouraging a minor over age 16 related to victim A.J.; and (6) two counts
6 of human trafficking of a minor for a sex act related to victim A.J. (Doc. 17-8 at 1-2; Doc. 17-2
7 at 9-15).2 The court sentenced defendant to 36 years to life in prison. (Doc. 17-8 at 7; Doc. 17-2
8 at 123-26).
9 On appeal, the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal summarized the pertinent facts of
10 the underlying offenses:3

11 On April 6, 2017, around 8:00 p.m., Fresno police received
information relayed to them from the Las Vegas Police Department
12
about a potential call for help made to a human trafficking hotline.
13 The Las Vegas Police Department had traced the number used to
call the hotline and determined the call had been made from Fresno,
14 not Las Vegas. The police believed the caller had been kidnapped.

15
The caller had originally identified herself as Kay Underwood.
16 Police first investigated the location where the trace showed the call
had been placed, but were unable to locate anyone in need. They
17 then called the number associated with the call. On the first attempt,
someone answered, but immediately hung up. On the second, a
18 woman answered. Police asked if she was Kay Underwood and
whether she was safe. The woman confirmed her identity and stated
19
she was on a date. She asked the officer if he wanted to meet. The
20 woman provided a description of her clothing and hair, and stated
she was staying at a motel near Blackstone and Ashlan.
21
Police then went to the motel to contact the caller. There, they saw
22
a woman in the parking lot of the motel, matching the description
23 they had been given, and contacted her. The initial interactions with
the caller were recorded by a body camera. In the video and audio,
24 the woman identified herself as A.J., said she was 17, and her
birthday was in January 2000. Police asked her if she had called
25 under a different name and she confirmed she had called the hotline
as Kay Underwood. Her demeanor was described as stand-offish
26

27 2 Record citations herein are to the CM/ECF-assigned pages.
3 These facts are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of correctness. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1);
1 and nervous and she asked whether she and the officers could “get
out of here,” stating, “I really don’t want to get caught.” On the way
2 to the police car, she was asked what she was doing there. She
responded, “My pimp.” At the car, after a few questions concerning
3
whether she possessed any weapons or anything illegal, she was
4 told she was not under arrest. She gave the officers the key to the
motel room where she was staying. She told them where she lived
5 and how long she had been a runaway. She stated she had called the
human trafficking hotline a few weeks before. She stated she was
6
on medications for depression. The police asked if she was injured
7 or needed medical attention. The police explained they were there
to help her and she was not in trouble. In response A.J. stated,
8 “He’s going to kill me!” A.J. was placed in the back of a police car,
where she began to cry.
9
In response, the police explained they could protect A.J. and began
10
asking questions about where her pimp was and how she contacts
11 him. With the body camera turned off, police asked if A.J. knew the
name of her pimp. She stated she did not, but described the car he
12 drives and stated he would be calling her soon. The police did not
ask follow-up questions about A.J.’s activities or about her pimp,
13
believing that would occur later.
14
About 45 minutes after describing her pimp’s car, a car matching
15 that description drove into the parking lot. At that time, A.J. began
to cry heavily and eventually confirmed the driver was her pimp.
16 Appellant was arrested. A.J. was taken to the Child Protective
Services Department.
17

18 A few days later, on April 10, police conducted an hour-plus
interview with A.J. at her school to gather the information
19 necessary for a proper human trafficking investigation.

20
Subsequent investigation showed appellant had rented two rooms at
21 the motel where A.J. was located. This information led the police to
identify an adult woman named S.M. S.M. testified at appellant’s
22 trial. She stated she had been in a relationship with appellant since
2016, during which time he had beaten her and worked as her pimp.
23 S.M. explained that appellant would keep the money she earned and
took possession of her belongings, including her identification and
24
her mother’s ashes.
25
Additional evidence collected included a cell phone appellant
26 procured for A.J. that contained semi-nude pictures of A.J. and that
had been used to connect with appellant’s cell phone 70 times
27
between April 6 and April 7. Copies of these pictures, and other
similar photographs were also found on appellant’s cell phone. A
1 laptop connected to appellant also appeared to have accessed sites
used for prostitution and uploaded at least one image which
2 appeared to depict A.J. at the motel where she was located. Another
laptop found in a storage unit rented by appellant contained
3
additional evidence of prostitution advertisements. Also, in the
4 storage unit were personal items and paperwork belonging to S.M.
Additional electronic evidence connected appellant to multiple
5 advertisements for prostitution involving S.M. and occurring at the
motel where A.J. was located. Finally, multiple text messages
6
between appellant and S.M. were introduced showing him directing
7 her activities as a prostitute.
8 (Doc. 17-8 at 2-5). The appellate court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions. (Id. at 17). On
9 February 10, 2021, the California Supreme Court summarily denied review. (See Doc. 17-10).
10 Petitioner now presents three grounds for relief, arguing (1) he was denied his right to
11 confront his accuser when the prosecution was allowed to introduce body camera footage and a
12 transcript of the conversation between A.J. and police; (2) the admission of A.J.’s statements also
13 violated his due process rights; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to establish A.J.’s age.
14 (Doc. 1 at 5-8).
15 II. STANDARD FOR FEDERAL HABEAS RELIEF
16 A federal court’s statutory authority to issue habeas corpus relief for persons in state
17 custody is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
18 Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). AEDPA requires a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief to
19 first “exhaust[t] the remedies available in the courts of the State.”4 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
20 Where the state court adjudicates the claim on the merits, a petitioner is not entitled to habeas
21 relief unless the adjudication (1) “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
22 unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
23 of the United States,” or (2) “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
24 determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28
25 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
26 “Deciding whether a state court’s decision ‘involved’ an unreasonable application of
27 federal law or was ‘based on’ an unreasonable determination of the facts requires the federal
1 habeas court to ‘train its attention on the particular reasons—both legal and factual—why state
2 courts rejected a state prisoner’s federal claims.” Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. 122, 125 (2018).
3 When the state court’s decision “does not come accompanied with [its] reasons” for the decision,
4 a federal court “should ‘look through’ the unexplained decision to the last related state-court
5 decision that does provide a relevant rationale.” Id. However, when there is no reasoned decision
6 to “look through,” it may be presumed—in “the absence of any indication or state-law procedural
7 principles to the contrary”—that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits and the
8 petitioner must show “there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief.”
9 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98-99 (2011).
10 Under § 2254(d)(1), a decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state
11 court either: (1) applied a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court case
12 law; or (2) reached a different result from the Supreme Court when faced with materially
13 indistinguishable facts. Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 16 (2003). A state court decision
14 involves an “unreasonable application” of the Supreme Court’s precedents if the state court
15 correctly identifies the governing legal principle but applies the facts of the petitioner’s case in an
16 objectively unreasonable manner, Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 134 (2005), or “if the state
17 court either unreasonably extends a legal principle from [Supreme Court] precedent to a new
18 context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new
19 context where it should apply.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407 (2000). “A state court’s
20 determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded
21 jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state court’s decision.” Harrington, 62 U.S. at
22 101 (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). The petitioner must show that
23 the state court decision “was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood
24 and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Id. at
25 103.
26 Under § 2254(d)(2), “a state-court factual determination is not unreasonable merely
27 because the federal habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first instance.”
1 reasonable minds reviewing the record might disagree about the finding in question, on habeas
2 review that does not suffice to supersede the trial court’s determination.” Marks v. Davis, 106
3 F.4th 941, 949 (9th Cir. 2024) (citations and quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brumfield v.
4 Cain, 576 U.S. 305, 314 (2015)).
5 III. ANALYSIS
6 A. Ground One – Right to Confront Witnesses
7 In ground one, Petitioner alleges he was denied his “Crawford right to confront his
8 accuser at trial.” (Doc. 1 at 5).
9 1. Background
10 During the preliminary hearing, A.J. “shut down on cross-examination and vividly and
11 clearly refused to testify any further which led to [a] stipulation to strike her testimony.” (Doc.
12 17-4 at 163; see Doc. 17-1 at 74-86). Based on A.J.’s refusal to testify, the prosecution argued
13 A.J. was unavailable for trial and moved to admit statements A.J. made to officers, including the
14 body camera footage of her initial encounter with officers. (See Doc. 17-1 at 151-53). The trial
15 court held extensive hearings on the parties’ motions in limine, including the request to admit
16 A.J.’s statements. (See Doc. 17-4 at 14-157).
17 During the hearing, Officer Jeremy DeMoss testified regarding his interaction with A.J on
18 April 6, 2017. (Doc. 17-4 at 57-76). Through DeMoss’s testimony, the prosecution offered the
19 body camera footage and a corresponding transcript. (Id. at 62-63; see Doc. 17-1 at 179-84). The
20 transcript shows that when officers initially contacted A.J., they asked her name, whether she had
21 an ID, and how old she was, to which she responded 17. (Doc. 17-1 at 180). The officers
22 continued to ask A.J. for her personal information and she asked, “Can we please get out of
23 here?” (Id. at 181). The officer asked if she wanted to sit in the back of the car, to which A.J.
24 responded, “I really don’t want to get caught.” (Id.). When asked what she was doing, A.J.
25 responded, “My pimp.” (Id.). A.J. indicated she had called the human trafficking hotline earlier.
26 (Id.). The officers assured A.J. they were “here to help” and that she was “not in trouble or
27 anything.” (Id. at 182). A.J. then stated, “He’s going to kill me!” (Id.). The officers assured A.J.
1 indicated she used the name Kay Underwood when she called the hotline. (Id. at 183).
2 In ruling on the prosecution’s request, the trial court recognized the outcome turned on
3 whether the statements were testimonial based on Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)
4 and Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006). (Id. at 163-64). Ultimately, the trial court
5 determined A.J.’s statements were not testimonial because the “officers were responding to an
6 ongoing emergency;” the environment “was not tranquil as reflected by [A.J.’s] fear of being
7 killed, crying, and her fright upon seeing defendant’s vehicle;” and “the officers were attempting
8 to ascertain the identity of the person giving rise to [A.J.’s] fears and emotions.” (Id. at 166).
9 Thus, the court granted the prosecution’s request to admit the statements. (Id. at 166-67). The
10 video and transcript were admitted as evidence at trial. (Id. at 226-27).
11 On appeal, Petitioner argued “the admission of A.J.’s statements to police as reflected in
12 the body camera video and related transcript” “violated ‘his Sixth Amendment right to confront
13 and cross-examine the witnesses against him under Crawford.’” (Doc. 17-8 at 8). The appellate
14 court explained Petitioner’s argument turned “on whether the statements admitted qualify as
15 testimonial under the Crawford analysis” and concluded they did not. (Id.). After setting forth
16 the relevant law under Crawford and decisions from the California Supreme Court, the appellate
17 court explained its ruling:

18 A full review of the body camera interview and the officers’
testimony concerning the event demonstrate this case is more like
19 those cases involving questions posed during an emergency than
those cases dealing with more formal statements. The police were
20 searching for a human trafficking victim who had called a hotline
seeking help. They had limited information about the person’s
21 appearance and had been given a false name. Upon locating the
potential victim and asking basic identity questions, the person they
22 were speaking to expressed concern about remaining in a public
space and indicated she feared for her life. In response, the police
23 asked a limited and specific set of questions designed to identify
who was causing that fear in their victim. Notably, while it may
24 generally be the intent of police in this situation to get as much
information as possible, the record does not show the police made
25 such an attempt here. Police asked no questions about past sexual
activities, where she may have been trafficked, or how she came
26 into her circumstances. Rather, they asked specific questions about
how to identify the person she claimed would kill her.
27
Although the situation is different in nature from the immediacy of
1 the crime of human trafficking is not so different that the initial
contact with a potential victim stating a current fear of harm should
2 be deemed sufficiently formal and lacking in emergency to warrant
application of the confrontation clause. Here, at least as reflected in
3 the body camera transcript that was introduced and related
testimony, the police were engaged in a process designed to identify
4 and secure a potential victim of human trafficking. Their questions
and actions were not designed to identify past facts or build a case,
5 but rather were focused on their need to properly identify the person
they were speaking with and respond to her statement of immediate
6 fear. Objectively, the primary purpose of the interactions was to
resolve an ongoing emergency and aid in identifying and
7 apprehending an unknown individual purportedly involved in an
ongoing criminal activity. The statements introduced were thus not
8 testimonial and, therefore, appellant’s right to confront those
witnesses against him was not violated by their introduction.
9
10 (Id. at 10-11).
11 2. Arguments and Analysis
12 Petitioner argues the state court’s determination that A.J.’s statements were
13 nontestimonial was contrary to Crawford and Davis. (Doc. 11 at 29). Specifically, Petitioner
14 argues the appellate court failed to cite and discuss Hammon v. Indiana, 547 U.S. 813 (2006),
15 where the United States Supreme Court concluded statements were testimonial because there was
16 no emergency in progress; the questioning was not to determine what was happening, but rather
17 what happened; and the statements were made in a more formal setting. (Id. at 31-35). Petitioner
18 asserts the questioning here “concerned what had happened, rather than what was happening,”
19 “[t]here was no pending emergency,” and, while the appellate court concluded the questioning
20 was not formal, it was “just as formal as in Hammon” such that the statements here should also be
21 considered testimonial. (Id. at 34-35).
22 Respondent argues “A.J.’s statements fall squarely in the emergency category of
23 nontestimonial statements contemplated by Davis and its progeny” because the officers “had
24 information that A.J., who was a minor, had called the human trafficking hotline and had been
25 possibly kidnapped” and “[n]either the officers nor A.J. knew where A.J.’s pimp was located,
26 who A.J.’s pimp was with, or whether he was armed when A.J.’s challenged statements were
27 made.” (Doc. 19 at 17). In addition to arguing the statements were made as events were
happening and while officers believed they were dealing with an ongoing emergency, Respondent
1 cites the “casual nature” of the interaction to support that the statements were nontestimonial.
2 (Id.at 18-19). Thus, Respondent asserts “Petitioner failed to demonstrate that no-fairminded jurist
3 could agree with the California Court of Appeal’s decision that A.J.’s statements to the officers at
4 the scene were nontestimonial, especially given the wide discretion that that decision is afforded.”
5 (Id. at 20). Additionally, Respondent argues “Confrontation Clause violations are subject to
6 harmless error analysis” and “[e]ven without A.J.’s challenged statements, the jury would have
7 convicted Petitioner on all counts” such that Petitioner cannot show the statements had a
8 substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict. (Id.).
9 Petitioner replies that “[l]ike the California Court of Appeal,” Respondent “ignores
10 Hammon,” which Petitioner asserts is contrary to the state court’s decision. (Doc. 26 at 2).
11 Petitioner reasserts his argument that there was no emergency in progress at the time of A.J.’s
12 statements and that officers were questioning her regarding past events. (Id.).
13 As an initial matter, while Petitioner cites Hammon as separate from Davis, the
14 undersigned notes that the United States Supreme Court decided the two cases together in a single
15 opinion. See Davis, 547 U.S. at 813-15. The Supreme Court explained in Davis:

16 The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides: “In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be
17 confronted with the witnesses against him.” In Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53–54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177
18 (2004), we held that this provision bars “admission of testimonial
statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was
19 unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity
for cross-examination.” A critical portion of this holding … is the
20 phrase “testimonial statements.” Only statements of this sort cause
the declarant to be a “witness” within the meaning of the
21 Confrontation Clause. See id., at 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354. It is the
testimonial character of the statement that separates it from other
22 hearsay that, while subject to traditional limitations upon hearsay
evidence, is not subject to the Confrontation Clause.
23
24 547 U.S. at 821. In Davis, the Court held that “[s]tatements are nontestimonial when made in the
25 course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose
26 of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.” Id. at 822.
27 Conversely, statements “are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is
1 prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” Id. at 822-23.
2 A review of the facts in Hammon, as discussed in Davis, is warranted based on
3 Petitioner’s arguments. There, police responded to a domestic violence call and found the victim,
4 Amy Hammon, alone on the front porch. Davis, 547 U.S. at 819. Amy appeared frightened but
5 told officers “nothing was the matter” and allowed them to enter the home, where an officer saw
6 “a gas heating unit in the corner of the living room that had flames coming out of the partial glass
7 front” with pieces of glass on the ground around it. Id. (quotations and alterations omitted).
8 Police also encountered Hershel Hammon, who informed police he and his wife had been arguing
9 but “‘everything was fine now’ and the argument ‘never became physical.’” Id. Amy came back
10 inside, and one officer went to talk with her and ask what occurred while another officer stayed
11 with Hershel. Id. Hershel “made several attempts to participate in Amy’s conversation with the
12 police, but was rebuffed.” Id. at 819-20 (citation omitted). Amy provided an account to the
13 officer and completed an affidavit indicating Hershel “Broke our Furnace & shoved me down on
14 the floor into the broken glass. Hit me in the chest and threw me down. Broke our lamps &
15 phone. Tore up my van where I couldn’t leave the house. Attacked my daughter.” Id. at 820.
16 When Amy did not appear at Hershel’s domestic battery trial, the responding officer was asked to
17 “recount what Amy told him and to authenticate the affidavit.” Id.
18 The Supreme Court concluded Amy’s statements were testimonial. Id. at 829. It
19 explained:
20
It is entirely clear from the circumstances that the interrogation was
21 part of an investigation into possibly criminal past conduct—as,
indeed, the testifying officer expressly acknowledged, App. in No.
22 05–5705, at 25, 32, 34. There was no emergency in progress; the
interrogating officer testified that he had heard no arguments or
23 crashing and saw no one throw or break anything, id., at 25. When
the officers first arrived, Amy told them that things were fine, id., at
24 14, and there was no immediate threat to her person. When the
officer questioned Amy for the second time, and elicited the
25 challenged statements, he was not seeking to determine (as in
Davis) “what is happening,” but rather “what happened.”
26 Objectively viewed, the primary, if not indeed the sole, purpose of
the interrogation was to investigate a possible crime—which is, of
27 course, precisely what the officer should have done.
1 Turning to the present case, while Petitioner is correct that the appellate court did not cite
2 directly to Davis in rejecting his claim, it correctly set forth the Davis standard for determining
3 whether statements are testimonial. (See Doc. 17-8 at 9-10 (citing People v. Nelson, 190 Cal.
4 App.4th 1453, 1464-66 (2010) (discussing Davis))). The appellate court then reviewed the
5 circumstances surrounding A.J.’s statements, observing that the “police were searching for a
6 human trafficking victim who had called a hotline seeking help;” they “had limited information
7 about the person’s appearance and had been given a false name;” and A.J. “expressed concern
8 about remaining in a public space and indicated she feared for her life” and in response, “the
9 police asked a limited and specific set of questions designed to identify who was causing that fear
10 in their victim.” (Id. at 10-11). Importantly, the appellate court noted that “[p]olice asked no
11 questions about past sexual activities, where [A.J.] may have been trafficked, or how she came
12 into her circumstances. Rather, they asked specific questions about how to identify the person she
13 claimed would kill her.” (Id. at 11).
14 Thus, unlike in Hammon, where the victim explicitly denied any ongoing issues and
15 officers did not observe anything to indicate such, A.J. was actively seeking help from officers
16 and expressed fear over being discovered. Additionally, A.J.’s statements were directed
17 specifically toward identifying Petitioner, rather than describing any past incidents that may have
18 occurred. Based on the circumstances surrounding A.J.’s statements and the focus on protecting
19 A.J. and identifying Petitioner, it cannot be said that the primary purpose was to investigate past
20 crimes. Accordingly, A.J.’s statements were nontestimonial and the state court’s rejection of
21 Petitioner’s claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Davis. The undersigned
22 recommends ground one be denied.
23 B. Ground Two – Due Process Confrontation Right
24 In ground two, Petitioner argues A.J.’s statements “not only violated his constitutional
25 right to confrontation, but rather due process rights in a way that affected his conviction on all
26 counts.” (Doc. 1 at 7).
27 1. Background
1 separate and distinct due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment to confront and cross-
2 examine adverse witnesses that can be violated even if the Sixth Amendment confrontation right
3 is satisfied.” (Doc. 17-8 at 11-12). After discussing Petitioner’s reliance on Morrisey v. Brewer,
4 408 U.S. 471 (1972), which addressed the right of confrontation in parole revocation hearings and
5 related cases dealing with the right of confrontation in civil proceedings related to criminal
6 proceedings, the appellate court rejected Petitioner’s claim, explaining:

7 As explained in Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668,
684–685, “[t]he Constitution guarantees a fair trial through the Due
8 Process Clauses, but it defines the basic elements of a fair trial
largely through the several provisions of the Sixth Amendment . . .”
9 Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent a due process right to
confront witnesses arises as a separate and independent right from
10 the confrontation clause, that right is necessarily less than that
contained in the confrontation clause itself, which defines the full
11 scope of the right in the most critical of situations, the criminal trial.
As all forms of the right to confront one’s witnesses are triggered
12 upon the introduction of testimonial hearsay, regardless of the
scope of the due process right a failure to demonstrate the contested
13 evidence comprises testimonial hearsay precludes a due process
claim raising confrontation clause issues. We have previously
14 concluded the statements in this case do not rise to the level of
testimonial hearsay and, therefore, reject appellant’s claim his due
15 process right to confront witnesses was violated in this instance.
16 (Id. at 14).
17 2. Arguments and Analysis
18 Beyond his initial statement in the Petition that the admission of A.J.’s statement violated
19 his due process rights, Petitioner failed to present any substantive argument or identify any
20 relevant case law establishing a due process right to confrontation separate from the Sixth
21 Amendment right. (See Doc. 1 at 7, 16-35).
22 Respondent argues that while “probationers and parolees facing revocation have a
23 Fourteenth Amendment right to confrontation” under Morrissey, “the Supreme Court has not
24 applied this Fourteenth Amendment right to defendants facing criminal prosecution.” (Doc. 19 at
25 23-24). Accordingly, Respondent argues Petitioner’s claim is barred. (Id. at 24). Alternatively,
26 Respondent argues Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief because “the Fourteenth Amendment
27 right to confrontation afforded probationers and parolees is less generous than the Sixth
1 fair-minded jurist could agree with the California Court of Appeal that Petitioner is not entitled to
2 relief on this claim.” (Id. at 18). Finally, Respondent argues Petitioner “cannot demonstrate he
3 was prejudiced by the purported failure to apply the Fourteenth Amendment right to
4 confrontation.” (Id. at 25).
5 In his traverse, Petitioner asserts that the Supreme Court has established a Fourteenth
6 Amendment right to confrontation and cross-examination on numerous occasions. (Doc. 26 at 5).
7 Petitioner cites three cases in support of his assertion: Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284,
8 294 (1973); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 42-43 (1967); and Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 504
9 (1960).5
10 As Respondent argues, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fourteenth Amendment
11 right to confront witnesses in the criminal context. Petitioner is correct that the Supreme Court
12 explained in Chambers that the “rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call
13 witnesses in one’s own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process.” 410 U.S.
14 at 294. However, “[w]here a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of
15 constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not
16 the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing such a
17 claim.” Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Albright v.
18 Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994)). It follows that because the Sixth Amendment, as addressed
19 above, specifically protects a defendant’s right to confront witnesses, the Fourteenth
20 Amendment’s due process protection does not grant any additional confrontation rights. The
21 cases cited by Petitioner do not support a contrary conclusion. See Hannah, 363 U.S. at 421-22
22 (addressing whether due process extended the right to confrontation to cases before the
23 Commission on Civil Rights); id. at 440 (noting that “the requirements of due process frequently
24 vary with the type of proceeding involved”); see In re Gault, 387 U.S. at 56 (recognizing that
25 “confrontation and sworn testimony by witnesses available for cross-examination were essential
26

27 5 As Petitioner did not present any argument or cite these cases until his traverse, his argument on ground two is
properly deemed waived. See United States v. Becerra, 164 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Claims raised for the first
1 for a finding of ‘delinquency’” in juvenile proceedings).
2 Because Petitioner’s confrontation claim is properly analyzed under the Sixth Amendment
3 and, as discussed above, fails on the merits, the undersigned recommends ground two be denied.
4 C. Ground Three – Sufficiency of the Evidence
5 In ground three, Petitioner argues there was insufficient proof of A.J.’s age to support that
6 she was a minor when the only evidence beyond her statements in the video was her driver’s
7 license. (Doc. 11 at 8).
8 1. Background
9 The state appellate court rejected Petitioner’s sufficiency claim on appeal, explaining:

10 Appellant’s final argument on appeal is that the People failed to
prove A.J. was a minor at the time of the relevant charges.
11 Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence on this point
because A.J.’s statements to police that she was 17, were
12 improperly admitted as was the only other evidence of her age, her
California driver’s license. As explained above, we conclude that
13 A.J.’s statements to police were admissible, meaning sufficient
evidence of A.J.’s age is properly in the record to support the
14 conviction. We further note that in addition to the two pieces of
evidence cited by appellant, additional circumstantial evidence in
15 the form of testimony from A.J.’s social worker, who stated she
manages minor wards of the court, was also present. Accordingly,
16 we reject appellant’s claim that insufficient evidence supported his
conviction on counts 4–7.
17
18 (Doc. 17-8 at 17).
19 2. Arguments and Analysis
20 Besides the initial statement of ground three, Petitioner once again fails to put forth any
21 argument in support of his insufficient evidence claim in the Petition. (See Doc. 1 at 8, 30-35).
22 Respondent argues “a fair-minded jurist could conclude that the prosecution met its burden of
23 proving that A.J. was a minor at all relevant times” based on A.J.’s statements to the officers, “a
24 certified copy of a document from the California Department of Motor Vehicles, which included
25 A.J.’s date of birth,” and testimony from A.J.’s social worker indicating that she “managed minor
26 wards of the court, which included A.J.” (Doc. 19 at 26-27). In his traverse, Petitioner renews
27 his argument that A.J.’s statements were improperly admitted in violation of the confrontation
1 Department of Motor Vehicles” and the “violation of the confrontation clause precluded
2 petitioner from making that argument.” (Doc. 26 at 5-6).
3 “[T]he Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof
4 beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is
5 charged.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). Under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307
6 (1979), which sets forth the federal standard for determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim,
7 such a claim “can only succeed when, viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the
8 prosecution, no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond
9 a reasonable doubt.” Johnson v. Montgomery, 899 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2018). Federal
10 courts look to state law for the elements of the specific offense at issue. Maquiz v. Hedgpeth, 907
11 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir. 2018). When a federal habeas court reviews an insufficiency claim
12 previously rejected on the merits by the state court, “a second level of deference applies under
13 AEDPA” such that, to prevail, a petitioner must show that the “state court’s determination that a
14 rational jury could have found each required element proven beyond a reasonable doubt was not
15 just wrong but was objectively unreasonable.” Johnson, 899 F.3d at 1056-57.
16 Here, Petitioner only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support that A.J. was
17 under 18 years of age for purposes of California Penal Code §§ 236.1(c) and 266. To the extent
18 Petitioner’s challenge is based on a renewal of his confrontation clause claim, such claim fails for
19 the reasons discussed above. The evidence supporting A.J.’s age included (1) her statement to the
20 officers that she was 17; (2) her statement that her date of birth was January 19, 2000; and (3) a
21 copy of A.J.’s driver’s license confirming her date of birth, admitted without objection through
22 the testimony of Grant Bradford. (Doc. 17-1 at 180-81; Doc. 17-3 at 4-5; see Doc. 17-4 at 617).
23 Additionally, A.J. told officers she lived with foster parents. (Doc. 17-1 at 181-82). At trial,
24 Jesica Rubio Martinez testified that she was a social worker for the Department of Social Services
25 for Fresno County; she worked “to find permanency and stability for the minors” who were wards
26 of the court in cases assigned to her; and A.J. was a minor that she was working to find placement
27 for. (Doc. 17-4 at 305-07). This evidence was more than sufficient to support that A.J. was under
1 “objectively unreasonable” as required for Petitioner to be entitled to habeas relief. Johnson, 899
2 F.3d at 1056-57.
3 Accordingly, the state court’s rejection of Petitioner’s sufficiency of the evidence claim
4 was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court
5 precedent, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The undersigned
6 recommends that ground three be denied.
7 IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
8 “[A] state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a
9 district court’s denial of his application.” Miller-El v. Cockell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule
10 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a court to “issue or deny a certificate of
11 appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability
12 will issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
13 right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this showing for claims rejected on procedural grounds,
14 a movant must demonstrate “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
15 states a valid claim of denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
16 debatable whether the district was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
17 473, 484 (2000). When a claim is rejected on the merits, the petitioner “must demonstrate that
18 reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable
19 or wrong” to warrant a certificate of appealability.
20 Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
21 right, the undersigned recommends that the court decline to issue a certificate of appealability.
22 V. RECOMMENDATION
23 For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED:
24 1. Petitioner be DENIED all relief on his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 11);
25 and
26 2. Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability.
27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this
1 | United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of service, any party
2 | may file written objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a
3 | copy □□ □□□ parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
4 | Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without leave of Court and good
5 | cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a
6 | party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its
7 | CM/ECEF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with
8 || specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be disregarded by the
9 | District Judge when reviewing the Findings and Recommendations under 28 U.S.C. §
10 | 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal
11 | the district judge’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing
12 | Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
13 | IT IS SOORDERED.
Dated: _May 16, 2025 | Word bo
15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11052770. Public record. Not legal advice.