DocketNumber: No. 03-56386; D.C. No. CV-99-12152-SVW(Mc)
Filed Date: 10/21/2004
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
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.
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.
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.
. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 732, 735 n. 1, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).
. 62 Cal.2d 218, 42 Cal.Rptr. 9, 397 P.2d 1001 (Cal.1965).
. See Hill v. Roe, 321 F.3d 787, 789 (9th Cir.2003).
. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir.2003). At the time of the state court decision in this case, the Supreme Court had not yet decided Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Consequently, Crawford has no bearing on this case.
. 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986).
. 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1973).
. See Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431; Davis, 415 U.S. at 318, 94 S.Ct. 1105.
. See Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431.