Opinion ID: 858160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Ms. Bryan’s statement

Text: The district court next considered Mr. Hernandez’s third argument—that the trial court erred in excluding testimony by a woman named Julie Bryan regarding a statement that Tanya Hernandez, the mother of the victims, allegedly made to Ms. Bryan. In this statement, Ms. Hernandez purportedly told Ms. Bryan that she (Ms. Hernandez) had instructed A.H. and R.H. to lie about Mr. Hernandez’s sexual abuse of the girls. Mr. Hernandez argues that this evidence was relevant because it provided the victims with a motive to testify against him and it was admissible as a statement against penal interest under Oklahoma’s hearsay rules. The OCCA rejected this argument, finding that the trial judge did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of Ms. Bryan. The OCCA specifically stated that, “while the statement could have subjected the girls’ mother to criminal liability, there was no corroborating evidence that the mother made the statement. For a hearsay statement to be admissible as against a declarant’s -9- interest in this manner, it must be corroborated as reliable by other evidence.” Id. at . The federal district court, in reviewing the sufficiency of the OCCA’s decision, stated that “the OCCA, while not citing Supreme Court precedent, rejected Petitioner’s evidentiary claim in reliance upon state court precedent which squarely addressed the constitutional issue and, consequently, its ‘decision constitutes an adjudication of the federal claim[.]” Id. (quoting Harris v. Poppell, 411 F.3d 1189, 1196 (10th Cir. 2005)); see also Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088 (2013). The district court therefore correctly held that the state court (OCCA) had addressed Mr. Hernandez’s federal argument concerning Ms. Bryan’s excluded statement. Additionally, the district court observed that Mr. Hernandez only cited Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973), for his argument that he deserved habeas relief because he was denied his fundamental right of defense. The district court then held that the OCCA’s determination that Mr. Hernandez’s rights were not violated was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, the Chambers decision. The court held it would not grant Mr. Hernandez habeas relief on this ground. We agree with this determination.