Opinion ID: 858160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prior allegations; cross-examination

Text: In this argument, Mr. Hernandez claims that the trial court erred in excluding evidence that Mr. Hernandez’s older victim, A.H., had previously made false allegations of sexual abuse against three juvenile males, as well as against a family friend, Chris Pulsifer. The charges against the juveniles were initially filed in Tulsa County District Court, but were later dropped. It appears that nothing developed from the accusation involving Mr. Pulsifer. Mr. Hernandez argues that his right to present a complete defense was compromised by the trial court’s refusal to permit him to introduce evidence of these prior allegedly false accusations. Mr. Hernandez also argues that the trial court erred in restricting his ability to cross-examine both of his victim-accusers. He claims he would have been able to more effectively cross-examine A.H. with information about her prior accusations; he claims he was, more generally, restricted in his cross-examination of R.H. He thus alleges that the district court erred in failing to find that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been thereby violated by these limitations on his ability to effectively cross-examine his two accusers. In rejecting this argument as a basis for issuance of a writ, the district court examined carefully the OCCA’s discussion of and resolution of this issue, as well as the trial record relating to this issue. The district court then surveyed the Supreme Court authority relevant to this claim and cited by Mr. Hernandez. With -6- respect to his allegation that he was prevented from presenting a complete defense by not being able to present evidence of the four men previously (allegedly) accused by A.H., the district court concluded that: Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the OCCA contradicted or unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent. While it is clearly established that a state’s evidentiary rules cannot be applied mechanistically to prevent a defendant from presenting evidence in his own defense, it is also clear that a court may exclude evidence that is not relevant. Hernandez v. Parker, 2012 WL 6202974, at  (W.D. Okla. Nov. 21, 2012) (unpublished). With regard to Mr. Hernandez’s related argument that he was impermissibly restricted in his cross-examination of both victims, the district court again surveyed thoroughly and carefully the trial record, the OCCA’s analysis, and relevant Supreme Court authority. The court concluded: The OCCA’s determination did not conflict with these [Supreme Court] decisions, and Petitioner has failed to establish that such a determination was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. The OCCA did not countenance the application of an arbitrary rule in upholding the trial court’s refusal to allow the cross-examination of A.H. about alleged prior false allegations but, instead, upheld the exclusion based on the lack of probative value. And, while recognizing the clearly established Constitutional right of cross-examination, the OCCA found that defense counsel’s crossexamination of R.H. was not “shut down” . . . Habeas relief is not warranted on this ground. Id., at . We agree with the district court’s analysis in both of these statements. The OCCA complied with applicable Supreme Court precedent. -7- Furthermore, except for bare citations to several Supreme Court decisions, Mr. Hernandez makes no attempt to explain why or how the OCCA unreasonably applied or contradicted applicable Supreme Court authority. While Mr. Hernandez is pro se and entitled to a more liberal reading of his pleadings, we cannot act as his advocate and create arguments for him. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted).