Case ID: f-appx_54/html/0279-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carl Jerome LEE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Darrel ADAMS, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 01-56170.
    D.C. No. CV-00-10785-NM.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 3, 2002.
    
    Decided Jan. 8, 2003.
    Before BEEZER, KOZINSKI and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carl Lee fails to cite a single case that shows the admission of expert testimony on battered women’s syndrome, combined with a proper limiting instruction, “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (emphasis added); cf. Garceau v. Woodford, 275 F.3d 769, 774 (9th Cir.2001), cert. granted in part by, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 32, 153 L.Ed.2d 893 (2002). The expert testimony here was highly relevant for the purpose of contextualizing the victim’s testimony. Cf. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68-69, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (allowing probative expert testimony on battered child syndrome). It explained the emergence of certain traits in battered women and dispelled common misconceptions about how battered women behave; it did not describe Lee or portray any actual events.

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.