Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04749/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04749-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julie Brown
Respondent
Jermaine Edward Casey
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERMAINE EDWARD CASEY,

Petitioner,

 v.

JULIE BROWN, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 04-4749 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed pro se by a state prisoner. The

court denied the petition in an order entered on July 30, 2007, and judgment was entered

that day. On August 15, 2007, petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal and request for a

certificate of appealability (“COA”). 

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding

without first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of

probable cause to appeal). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall

grant a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate must indicate

which issues satisfy this standard. See id. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has

rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is

straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

At petitioner’s trial the court admitted testimony from the victims about two prior

uncharged sexual offenses which the witnesses contended were committed by petitioner. 

Case 4:04-cv-04749-PJH Document 30 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Petitioner desired to impeach one of the witnesses by asking her if she had previously

made false accusations of sexual abuse. The question was based on petitioner’s having

told counsel that the witness had made such accusations, and that the reason he was not

charged with abuse of the witness was because of those prior false allegations. The trial

court did not allow the question, saying that petitioner’s unsupported assertion was an

insufficient basis for it. This court concluded that the state’s interest in excluding

unreliable or prejudicial evidence was strong, and that petitioner’s interest in the proposed

cross-examination was weak because of the slight basis for the question. Thus the trial

court’s application of the California evidentiary rule in this case was reasonable and neither

arbitrary nor disproportionate, so petitioner’s rights were not violated. See Fowler v.

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Dept., 421 F.3d 1027, 1037 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard). 

It would, however, be possible for jurists of reason to find this result debatable. A

certificate of appealability therefore is GRANTED as to whether the trial court violated

petitioner’s due process and confrontation rights by refusing to allow him to ask Desiree if

she had made prior false accusations of sexual assault. It is DENIED as to his other

issues.

The clerk shall transmit the file, including a copy of this order, to the Court of

Appeals. See Fed. R.App.P. 22(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.04\CASEY749.COA.wpd 

Case 4:04-cv-04749-PJH Document 30 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 2