Opinion ID: 800891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pretrial Access

Text: [1] The scope of Petitioner’s right to interview R.H. before trial5 was as follows: 5 Petitioner cites no Supreme Court precedent explicitly recognizing the right to have access to adverse witnesses before trial, but we assume, without deciding, that such a right is necessarily implied by the right to a “meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see id. (“Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. ValenzuelaBernal, 458 U.S. 858, 872 (1982) (discussing when deportation of a witness might rise to the level of a due process violation); Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 873 (1966) (stating, with respect to grand jury testimony, that “[i]n our adversary system for determining guilt or innocence, it is rarely justifiable for the prosecution to have exclusive access to a storehouse of relevant fact,” and that “[e]xceptions to this are justifiable only by the clearest and most compelling considerations”). We assess this “right of access” under principles of the Due Process Clause. See Gregory v. United States, 369 F.2d 185, 188 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (stating that “elemental fairness and due process require[ ]” that both parties have an equal opportunity to interview witnesses). To the extent that Petitioner seeks to invoke the Confrontation Clause, his claim fails under the AEDPA standard of review because no clearly established Supreme Court precedent supports that argument, which remains subject to dispute. At least one Supreme Court opinion failed to obtain majority support for the proposition that the Confrontation Clause is a “trial right” and not “a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery.” Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52 (1987) (plurality opinion); accord Coleman v. Calderon, 150 F.3d 1105, 1112 (9th Cir.), reversed on other grounds, 525 U.S. 141, 145 (1998) (per curiam). But see Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 738 n.9 (1987) (“The personal view of the author [Blackmun, J.] of this opinion as to the Confrontation Clause is somewhat broader than that of the Ritchie plurality.”); United States v. Collins, 551 F.3d 914, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2009) (expressing doubt as to Ritchie’s scope). FENENBOCK v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS 5711 [A] defendant’s right of access to a witness exists co-equally with the witness[’s] right to refuse to say anything. The defendant’s right of access is not violated when a witness chooses voluntarily not to be interviewed. . . . [T]he prosecution may not interfere with a witness’s free choice to speak with the defense . . . . United States v. Black, 767 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); accord Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 509 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[The witness] had a right not to be interviewed if she so chose.”). Thus, a witness’ right to refuse pretrial access is well established,6 but it is equally well established that the prosecution may not interfere with a witness’ decision to grant or refuse pretrial access.7 Here, Petitioner’s lack of access to R.H. arose from that witness’ own decision (through his guardian ad litem, his 6 “Ninth Circuit caselaw . . . may be persuasive authority for purposes of determining whether a particular state court decision is an ‘unreasonable application’ of Supreme Court law, and also may help us determine what law is ‘clearly established.’ ” Duhaime v. DuCharme, 200 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir. 2000). 7 See, e.g., Callahan v. United States, 371 F.2d 658, 660 (9th Cir. 1967) (involving allegations that the United States Attorney’s office or the office of the United States Marshal had “advised the witnesses not to talk to defense counsel”); United States v. Gonzales, 164 F.3d 1285, 1288 (10th Cir. 1999) (involving an Assistant United States Attorney who “instructed [the witness] to call the defense attorney . . . and tell him she did not want to talk to defense representatives” and also “threatened defense team members with prosecution if they continued to ‘harass’ government witnesses”); United States v. Long, 449 F.2d 288, 295-96 (8th Cir. 1971) (declining to find error where a witness did not want to talk to defense counsel, and there was “no evidence that his reluctance to talk to the defendants’ attorneys resulted from any interference by the Government or its attorneys”); Gregory, 369 F.2d at 187 (involving a prosecutor who “advis[ed] the witnesses . . . not to speak to anyone unless he were present”). 5712 FENENBOCK v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS appointed counsel, and his social workers) to refuse to be interviewed by defense counsel. As the district court stated, “[t]his is no different from a concerned parent refusing to allow a child to be interviewed by defense counsel.”8 [2] It is significant, then, that Petitioner can point to no prosecutorial interference with access to R.H. Instead, Petitioner alleges indirect interference, by means of another arm of government—CPS, which employed one of the social workers who worked with R.H. But that argument ignores the trial court’s express finding that the prosecution did not interfere, even indirectly, with R.H.’s decision. In a habeas case such as this one, we must defer to that finding unless Petitioner overcomes it with clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, or at least demonstrates that the finding was an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), (e)(1). [3] Accordingly, Petitioner’s denial of access claim fails for two reasons. First, the record supports the finding that an interview with defense counsel would have run counter to R.H.’s best interests. Second, the decisions that Petitioner faults were made by CPS, not the prosecution. Petitioner cannot demonstrate prosecutorial interference by pointing to the independent conduct of a state social services agency that was acting in loco parentis. Although in some contexts the prosecutor may be responsible for what happens in a different government office, see United States v. Blanco, 392 F.3d 382, 394 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the government’s obligation 8 Citing People v. Pitts, 273 Cal. Rptr. 757, 872-73 (Ct. App. 1990), Petitioner also argues that California law gives courts discretion to reject a guardian’s decisions in a criminal case if those decisions would deprive a defendant of constitutional rights. Even assuming that Petitioner is correct, and further assuming that, as Petitioner argues, the trial judge misap- prehended his role in this regard, Petitioner still cannot demonstrate that such a mistake would be “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (emphasis added). FENENBOCK v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS 5713 to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), applies “not only [to] the prosecutor, but [to] the government as a whole”), here we must respect the separate authority of a state agency charged with protecting the interests of children, see Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 853 (1990) (“[A] State’s interest in the physical and psychological well-being of child abuse victims may be sufficiently important to outweigh, at least in some cases, a defendant’s right to face his or her accusers in court.”). If a state’s interest in protecting the interests of children can, in some circumstances, permit trial testimony by one-way closed-circuit television, id., then those interests also can support the denial of pretrial access to a witness who has an indisputable right to refuse such access. See United States v. Rouse, 111 F.3d 561, 566 (8th Cir. 1997) (“When a child witness is in the legal custody of a social services agency, that agency as custodian may refuse requests for pretrial interviews.”).9 [4] Petitioner did not raise the denial-of-access claim until he filed his state habeas petition, so the last reasoned opinion, 9 Petitioner cites cases holding that a due process violation arises when the government deports a potentially favorable witness, thereby denying access to that witness. See, e.g., United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez, 450 F.2d 1, 4 (9th Cir. 1971), overruled by United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982), as stated in United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 516 (9th Cir. 2009). But intervening Supreme Court rulings have significantly narrowed that rule to require a showing “that the Government acted in bad faith and that this conduct resulted in prejudice to the defendant’s case.” Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d at 517 (internal quotation marks omitted). Bad faith is relevant to the inquiry in such cases because the denial of access relates to potentially exculpatory evidence, rather than evidence known to be exculpatory. United States v. Dring, 930 F.2d 687, 693 n.7 (9th Cir. 1991). This case, similarly, involves denial of access to potentially exculpatory evidence—the possibility that R.H. would have told a different version of his story. Thus, even if we were to apply the reasoning of the deportation cases, Petitioner could not prevail without showing prosecutorial bad faith, which he has failed to do. See MedinaVilla, 567 F.3d at 517. 5714 FENENBOCK v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS which the California appellate court issued in his direct appeal, contains no discussion of the matter. See Robinson, 360 F.3d at 1055 (noting that we review the “last reasoned decision” of a state court addressing the issue at hand). The state supreme court denied the state habeas petition without explanation. We must therefore “independently review the record, [but] we still defer to the state court’s ultimate decision.” Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 784 (2011) (“Where a state court’s decision is unaccompanied by an explanation, the habeas petitioner’s burden still must be met by showing there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief.”). That is, although we must decide independently whether the state court could have reached its conclusion without applying clearly established federal law improperly, AEDPA still operates to limit the governing law to Supreme Court precedents. Petitioner has failed to identify any such precedent to support the contention that he suffered a violation of his right to pretrial access to R.H., and we have discovered none. Accordingly, we find no error.