Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01433/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01433-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOUT SAECHAO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-1433 ALA HC

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al., ORDER

Respondent.

 /

Pending before the court is Petitioner Tout Saechao’s pro se application for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The parties have not addressed the question of whether the doctrine of adequate and

independent state grounds bars our review of Petitioner’s challenge to the admission of hearsay

statements as stated in Ground IV. However, a federal court may raise the issue of procedural

default sua sponte if doing so furthers the interests of comity, federalism, and judicial efficiency. 

Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). California law does not support

reversing a conviction because or erroneously admitted evidene unless there is a

contemporaneous objection to evidence which should have been admitted and the admission of

such evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Cal. Penal Code § 353; People v. Callahan,

Case 2:03-cv-01433-ALA Document 21 Filed 02/06/08 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

2

74 Cal. App. 4th 356, 363 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). A Petitioner’s substantial rights are affected

when an alleged error leads to a miscarriage of justice under People v. Watson. Callahan, 74

Cal. App. 4th at 363. A miscarriage of justice occurs when the court, after an examination of the

entire case, including the evidence, feels that it is reasonably probable that a result more

favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error. People v.

Watson, 46 Cal. 2d 818, 836 (1956). Petitioner failed to make a contemporaneous objection to

the admission of hearsay statements contained in the testimony of Joseph Scott. Therefore his

attack on his conviction as stated in Ground IV may have been procedurally defaulted unless the

error resulted in a denial of due process of law. People v. Matteson, 61 Cal. 2d 466 (1964).

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the above, the parties are directed to file, on or before March 4, 2008,

simultaneous briefs of no more than ten pages, discussing whether Ground IV of Petitioner’s

petition is procedurally defaulted under the standards discussed above.

/////

DATED: February 5, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:03-cv-01433-ALA Document 21 Filed 02/06/08 Page 2 of 2