Opinion ID: 805977
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-Examination of Shanna Dinh

Text: At the Atkins trial, Shanna Dinh, a witness for the State and a former friend of Mr. Hooks, testified at length about Mr. Hooks’s daily routine, numerous girlfriends, running of a prostitution ring, negotiation with landlords and a car salesman, and meticulous cleaning habits, among other things. See 4 M.R. Tr. at 194–215. On cross-examination, counsel sought to impeach Ms. Dinh’s credibility with prior inconsistent statements, including statements she made at Mr. Hooks’s original trial in 1989. The most notable inconsistency concerned Ms. Dinh’s living arrangements. She claimed at the 1989 trial to have lived with Mr. Hooks “for a couple of months,” 2 Trial Tr. at 413 (Test. of Ms. -37- Dinh),13 but claimed at the 2004 Atkins trial to have lived with him for years, see 4 M.R. Tr. at 197–98. Mr. Hooks avers that the trial court “prohibited all inquiry” into this and other alleged inconsistencies,14 thereby denying him his right to confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Aplt. Opening Br. at 53.15 “The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution ‘to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678 (1986). “Confrontation means more than being allowed to confront the witness physically.” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974). Central to the Clause’s purpose is “secur[ing] for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 678 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Davis, 415 U.S. at 315–16) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right of confrontation through cross-examination is not absolute, however. “[T]rial judges retain wide latitude 13 Throughout this opinion, we employ the abbreviation “[volume number] Trial Tr.” to refer to a particular volume of the three-volume transcript of the original trial. 14 Mr. Hooks also points us to allegedly inconsistent statements by Ms. Dinh concerning whether Ms. Blaine worked for Mr. Hooks as a prostitute. Our independent review of the record reveals no inconsistency in this regard, so we do not address it further. Compare 2 Trial Tr. at 415–16 (Test. of Ms. Dinh) (stating that Mr. Hooks tried to persuade Ms. Blaine to work as a prostitute for him but “[s]he wouldn’t”), with 4 M.R. Tr. at 222 (Test. of Ms. Dinh) (stating that Ms. Blaine engaged in prostitution “once and she didn’t like it and whenever [Mr. Hooks] tried to make her do it again[,] she didn’t do it”). 15 To the extent that Mr. Hooks asks us to consider evidence not before the OCCA, we are precluded from doing so. See Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1398; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). -38- insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’[s] safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Id. at 679. And “the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20 (1985). The OCCA rejected Mr. Hooks’s Confrontation Clause claim, resting its conclusion on the ground that, while Ms. Dinh may not have truthfully testified about her living arrangements, “[Mr.] Hooks offers no evidence to suggest that [Ms. Dinh’s] testimony regarding her observations during the time she did spend with him were inaccurate.” Hooks Atkins Appeal, 126 P.3d at 643. In light of our ultimate disposition of this challenge, it suffices for us to assume without deciding that the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence is clearly established law in the Atkins context. Cf. Wilson v. Sirmons, 536 F.3d 1064, 1111 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e have recently stated that it is far from clear whether the Confrontation Clause even applies at capital sentencing proceedings.” (quoting United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079, 1099 (10th Cir. 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted)), rehr’g granted on other grounds, 549 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2008). Operating on that assumption, we nonetheless hold that the OCCA’s ruling was an erroneous and unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause precedents. -39- As the Court explained in Davis, Cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested. Subject always to the broad discretion of a trial judge to preclude repetitive and unduly harassing interrogation, the cross-examiner is not only permitted to delve into the witness’[s] story to test the witness’[s] perceptions and memory, but the cross-examiner has traditionally been allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness. 415 U.S. at 316 (emphases added). Mr. Hooks sought to impeach Ms. Dinh for this very purpose—not to impugn the accuracy of her specific observations of his behavior, but to discredit her generally and highlight her capacity for untruthfulness. The OCCA rejected Mr. Hooks’s claim because his impeachment evidence did not counter the accuracy of specific observations made by Ms. Dinh. That ruling, however, reflects an incomplete understanding of the Confrontation Clause’s protective sweep. The Clause secures far more than the right to challenge the accuracy of specific aspects of a witness’s testimony. It entitles a defendant to “confront” the witness, “to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors . . . could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.” Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 738 (1987) (omission in original) (quoting Davis, 415 U.S. at 318) (internal quotation marks omitted). The OCCA’s rationale for rejecting Mr. Hooks’s Confrontation Clause claim was an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s precedents. Because the OCCA unreasonably applied (what we have assumed to be) clearly established federal law, AEDPA deference does not apply. See Spears v. Mullin, 343 F.3d 1215, 1248 (10th Cir. 2003). “That, however, is not the end of our inquiry. We -40- must determine de novo if a violation of the Confrontation Clause occurred.” Brown v. Uphoff, 381 F.3d 1219, 1225 (10th Cir. 2004). We conclude that Mr. Hooks’s Confrontation Clause claim is without merit. First, Mr. Hooks’s contention that the trial court “prohibited all inquiry into Ms. Dinh’s inconsistent statements,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 53, is simply inaccurate. On crossexamination, counsel was permitted to ask Ms. Dinh how long she had lived in foster care during the period of time she claimed to be living with Mr. Hooks. See 4 M.R. Tr. at 217–18, 220–21. Second, while the trial court did sustain several objections on grounds of relevancy, exceeding the scope of direct, and hearsay, it permitted counsel to rephrase her questions or ask questions more relevant to the jury’s assessment of Ms. Dinh’s credibility. See id. at 215–24. Finally, although Ms. Dinh’s testimony at the Atkins trial concerning how long she had lived with Mr. Hooks was indeed wildly inconsistent with her testimony in 1989, counsel never actually attempted to cross-examine Ms. Dinh concerning this precise issue, much less to drill down and explore it in detail.16 Based on our independent review of the record, we find that the trial court’s control of the crossexamination process—allowing for some impeachment and narrowing the scope of the questioning—fell well within its broad discretion to “impose reasonable limits” on the 16 At one point, counsel asked Ms. Dinh to confirm her testimony suggesting that she had lived with Mr. Hooks “90 percent of the time” between 1984 and 1987. 4 M.R. Tr. at 217. When Ms. Dinh confirmed, counsel followed up by asking, “[W]ere you living with Mr. Hooks at the time you were in foster care?” Id. Ms. Dinh responded, “No, I was in foster care.” Id. Counsel then proceeded to a question about whether Ms. Dinh had gotten married in 1988. See id. -41- process. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679. We therefore reject Mr. Hooks’s Confrontation Clause claim.