N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN PAUL NELSON, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. L. S. M C EW EN, W a

rde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 13-55710

D.C . No. 5:12-c v-00860-DM GM LG
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dolly M . Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, NOONAN, a n d WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s. John Pa u l Ne lson a

ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 pe tition. Ne lson c onte nds tha t his C onfronta

tion C la use rights we re viola

te d whe n Fire fighte r B ra dle y

W itt te stifie d tha

t the shooting vic tim

ide n tifie d Ne lson a s the shoote r, and tha

t his due proc e s s rights we re viola te d by the c um ulative e ffe c t of 

# F IL ED FEB 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.m

ultipletria l e rrors. B e c a

use the C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l’ s de c ision wa s ne ithe r c o ntra

ry to, nor a n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le arly

e sta b lishe d Supre m e C ourt pre c e de n t, nor ba se d on a n unre a s ona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c t s, we a ffirm . 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1)–(2). Nonte stim onia l sta

te m e nts do not im

plic ate the C onfronta

tion C la use . Mose s v . Pay ne , 555 F.3d 742, 754 (9th C ir. 2009) (c iting W horton v . Boc k

ting , 549 U.S. 406 (2007)). The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l re a sona bly de te rm ine d tha

t the v ic tim ’ s sta

te m e nt to Fire fighte r W itt wa s nonte stim onia l be c a use the
c irc um s ta nc e s obje c tive ly indic ate d tha t the prim ary

purpose of Fire fighte r W itt’ s que stion wa s to e na

ble polic e to re spond to a n ongoing e m e rge nc y . Dav is v
. W ashington , 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006). Fire fighte r W itt’ s one que stion, “ Who shot y ou? ,” wa s a ske d within thirty m inute s of the vic tim

be ing shot, while

an unide n tifie d shoote r wa s still a t la rge . The C ourt of Appe a l a lso re a sona bly
c onc lude d tha

t the c irc um s ta

nc e s surrounding Fire fighte r W itt’ s inquiry la c ke d the sole m nity and form a lity

a ssoc iate d with a

te stim onia l sta

te m e nt, C raw ford v
. W ashington , 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004), a s the e xc ha nge oc c urre d in the ba c k of an am bula n c e while the vic tim wa s fa d ing “ i n a nd out of c onsc iousne ss” and struggling to bre athe , a

nd c onsiste d of a

brie f two-word re sponse to a single que stion. The C o urt of Appe a l c onside re d a nd re a sona

bly a pplie d the re le va

nt
2fa c t ors unde r both C raw ford an d Dav is . 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); H arrington v
. Ric h te r , 131 S. C t. 770, 786–787 (2011). The C ourt of Appe a l’ s finding tha t Fire fighte r W itt a c te d with a se nse of im m e dia c y in c onve y ing the vic tim ’ s sta te m e nt to a

uthoritie s wa s not ba se d on “ an unre a s ona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c ts.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(2). Fire fighte r W i tt te stifie d tha

t he did not c a ll the B anning Polic e De pa rtm e n t for one and a ha lf to two hours a fte r the vic tim ’ s sta te m e nt be c a

use he wa s providing me d ic a l c a re to the v ic tim . Although Fire fighte r W itt a lso te stifie d tha t he c ould ha

v e use d his c e ll phone at the hospita l to c a ll the polic e , he a lso te stifie d that he “ im m e diate l y ”
c a lle d the polic e a fte r he arrive d ba c k at the fire sta

t ion. The C ourt of Appe a l did not “pla inly

m isa ppre he nd or m issta

te the re c ord” in m aking its finding tha t Fire fighte r W itt a c te d with a se nse of im

m e dia c y , Tay lor v . Maddox , 366 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th C ir. 2004), a

nd its finding the

re fore wa s not unre a sona

ble , id. at 999. Fina lly , the C ourt of Appe a l’ s c onc l usion tha t the c um ulative e ffe c t of tria l
e rrors did not re q

u ire Ne lson’ s c onvic tion to bere ve rse d wa s not c ontra ry to, or a n unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of, c le arly

e sta blishe d Supre m e C ourt pre c e d e nt. 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). “ [C ] um ulative e rror warrants ha

be a s re lie f only

whe re the
e rrors have ‘ so infe c te d the tria l with unfa irne ss a s to m ak e the re sulting c onvic tion
a de n ia l of due proc e ss.’ ” Parle v . Runne ls , 505 F.3d 922, 927 (9th C ir. 2007)

3(quoting Donne lly v . De C h ristoforo , 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974)). The C ourt of Appe a l ide ntifie d m

ultiplee rrors at Ne lson’ s tria l, inc luding e vide nc e of m otive that la c ke d founda

tion, Doy le e rror, and im

prope r argum e nt c onc e rning the vic t im ’ s a bse nc e from

tria l a nd m e dic a l c ondition. Howe ve r, the C ourt of Appe a l
re a s ona bly c onc lude d tha

t the e vide n c e a dm itte d im prope rly wa s c um ulative of
a dm issiblee vide nc e , brie f, or not pivotal to the c a se . M ore ove r, the re wa s c onside ra ble a d m issiblee vide nc e tha

t Ne lson shot a

n d inte nde d to kill the

vic tim , inc l uding sta

te m e nts from

the vic tim , witne sse s, a

nd Ne l son him se lf. B e c a

use the tria l e rrors did not infe c t the tria l with unfa irne s s, a nd the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se wa s not we ak, se e Unite d State s v . Fre d e ric k, 78 F.3d 1370, 1381 (9th C ir. 1996), it
wa s not unre a sona

ble for the C ourt of Appe a l to c onc lude that the tria l e rrors did not re sult in a

viola tion of dueproc e s s, c

f . C hambe rs v . Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 294, 302-03 (1973). AFFIRM E D.

4