Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05695/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05695-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM GONZALEZ, CASE NO. CV-F-03-5695 OWW DLB HC

Petitioner, ORDER FOLLOWING REMAND FROM

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

vs.

JIM HAMLET, WARDEN, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 16, 2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part the instant petition for writ

of habeas corpus. The petition was granted with respect to Petitioner’s sixth amendment claim

challenging the admission of an out-of-court statement. The Court granted the claim on reliance of the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Bockting v. Bayer, 399 F.3d 1010 (9 Cir. 2005), holding th

that the United States Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) ( which

held that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment bars the state from introducing out-of-court

statements which are testimonial in nature, unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a

prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant), applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. 

Respondent filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

challenging the retroactive application of the Crawford opinion. 

Case 1:03-cv-05695-OWW -DLB Document 35 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The Court’s docket of cases is substantial and it must act first on those cases that have been pending the longest. 1

2

On February 28, 2007, the Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Bockting,

finding that the Crawford rule does not apply retroactively to cases that are on collateral review.

Whorton v. Bockting, 127 S.Ct. 1173 (2007). 

Accordingly, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision reversing its decision in Bockting, the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the instant case back to this Court for

reconsideration of the petition applying pre-Crawford principles. (Court Doc. 34.) Because the case is

currently briefed on the merits applying pre-Crawford principles, no further briefing is necessary, and

the Court will issue a ruling on the merits in due course. 

1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 3, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05695-OWW -DLB Document 35 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 2