Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-11-99011/USCOURTS-ca9-11-99011-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raynard Paul Cummings
Appellant
Michael Martel
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAYNARD PAUL CUMMINGS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden,

California State Prison at San

Quentin,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-99011

D.C. No.

2:95-cv-07118-

CBM

ORDER

Filed April 29, 2016

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Diarmuid F.

O’Scannlain and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed on August 11, 2015, slip op. 11-99011,

and appearing at 796 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2015), is amended

as follows. At slip op. page 16–17 n.2, replace the current

footnote with the following footnote text:

Chief Judge Thomas’s dissent sidesteps

AEDPA and reviews Turner’s special

relationship prong de novo because, in his

view, the California Supreme Court

improperly layered a prejudice-balancing test

 Case: 11-99011, 04/29/2016, ID: 9957829, DktEntry: 103, Page 1 of 3
2 CUMMINGS V. MARTEL

on top of the Turner inquiry. See Thomas

Partial Dissent at 6–7. A close look at the

record reveals the source of this

misapprehension of the court’s opinion. In

the state trial court, Cummings asserted a

claim under California Evidence Code § 352,

and on direct appeal before the California

Supreme Court, he repeatedly asserted he was

prejudiced by La Casella’s testimony. At the

outset of its analysis, presumably in response

to Cummings’s arguments relating to

prejudice, the California Supreme Court noted

its agreement with the trial court that “the

probative value of [La Casella’s] testimony

outweighed any prejudice to Cummings.” 

850 P.2d at 37. Significantly, however, the 

California Supreme Court continued on to

frame the inquiry as one of due process, not a

mere evidentiary issue governed by a

prejudice-balancing test; quoted extensively

the relevant standards from Gonzalez and

Beto; and carefullydistinguished Cummings’s 

case with respect to both prongs of Turner. 

Id. at 37–38. The California Supreme Court

squarely held: “Neither defendant’s right to a

fair trial, nor his right to a jury trial was

undermined by the admission of LaCasella’s

testimony.” Id. at 38.

With these amendments, Judges O’Scannlain and

McKeown have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing

and rehearing en banc. Chief Judge Thomas has voted to

grant the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.

 Case: 11-99011, 04/29/2016, ID: 9957829, DktEntry: 103, Page 2 of 3
CUMMINGS V. MARTEL 3

The full court has been advised of the petition for

rehearing and rehearing en banc and no judge has requested

a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App.

P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing

en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for en banc or

panel rehearing shall be permitted.

 Case: 11-99011, 04/29/2016, ID: 9957829, DktEntry: 103, Page 3 of 3