T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T ST EP HEN O TT O REI TZ , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. C H A R L E S H A R R I S O N , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 56858 D. C. No . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 1 1 9 - ABC- J TL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A udr e yB . C ol l i ns , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r10, 2010 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: T R O T T , W A R D L A W , an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T he st at e app el l at e c ou rt ’ s deni al of R ei t z’ s c l ai m thatthe tri al courtvi ol at ed hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s byl i m i t i ng the t e s t i m ony of hi s e xpe rtw i tne s s e s w a s not c o n tr a ryto n o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f S u p r e m e C o u rt p r e c e d e n t. 

# FI LED DE C 20 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

D e f e n d a n ts d o n o t h a v e a n ab s o lu te r ig h t to p r e s e n t e v id e n c e r e le v a n t to th e ir d e f e n s e , se e Crane v. Kentucky , 47 6 U . S . 68 3, 69 0– 91 (198 6), and the st at e c ou rt n e ith e rin v o k e d a“p e rs e ” e v id e n tia ryru le , s e e R oc k v . A rkans as , 483 U . S . 44, 56 –5 7, 62 (198 7), no r s o d ra st i ca l l y l i m i t ed R ei t z’ s abi l i ty t o exam i ne hi s e xp ert w itn e s s e s a s to r a is e d u e p r o c e s s c o n c e rn s , se e Cham be rs v . Mis s is s i ppi , 4 1 0 U . S. 28 4, 30 2 (19 73 ). T he s t a t e c ourt ’ s de ni a l of R e i t z ’ s C onf

r ont a t i on C l aus e c l a i m w a s not contraryt o n or an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of S up re m e C ou rtprec edent . H er e, n o n e o f th e c a s u a l r e m a rk s b yE v ato f r ie n d s a n d f

a m ilyw e r e “te s tim o n ia l” w ith in the m eani ng of Cr aw

f ord v . W as hi ngton , 54 1 U . S . 36 , 51 –5 2 (20 04 ), or D a v is v. W as hi ngton , 54 7 U . S . 81 3, 82 2 (20 06 ), because the re m arks w er e notm ade “ un der ci rc um st ance s w hi ch w ou l d l ea d an o bj ec t i ve w i tness re as on abl y t o b el i eve that [they] w ou l d b e a vai l abl e f or use a ta l at ertri al , ” P a r le v . R u n n e ls , 387 F . 3d 1030, 1037 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng Cra w f o rd , 541 U . S . a t52) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks o m itte d ) . T he st at e c ou rt ’ s deni al of R ei t z’ s c l ai m thatthe adm i ss i on of si x h ears ay s ta te m e n ts b yth e v ic tim v io la te d h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts u n d e rth e F o u rte e n th A m endm entw as no tcontraryt o n or an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of S up re m e C ou rt pr e c e de nt . T he he a r s a ys t a t e m e nt s w e r e c um ul a t i ve of othe rt e s t i m ony a nd di d not3

“ re nd er [ ] the tri al so fund am ent al l y unfai r a s t o v i ol at e due process . ” R an do l ph v. Ca lifo rn ia , 380 F . 3d 1133, 1147 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng W in dh a m v . Me rkle , 163 F . 3d 1092, 1103 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . E ve n i f the a d m is s io n o f

s u c h s ta te m e n ts w a s as ta te la w e rr o r , s u c h a n e rr o rc a n n o t, o n its o w n , s u p p o rt th e g r a n tin g o f h ab e a s r e lie f

. See Estel le v. McG u i re , 502 U . S . 62, 6 7

– 6 8 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . A FFI R M ED .