Opinion ID: 792290
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings on Direct Appeal and on Habeas Review

Text: 16 On direct appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court's exclusion of Trina's testimony, as well as limitations on TaShea's testimony, violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. 7 The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that Trina's testimony on the five-day ultimatum would have been relevant to whatever inference of truthfulness the jury might have drawn from the timing of Jessica's accusations. R.12, Ex.E at 6. Similarly, the excluded testimony on the number of times Jessica and Randy had had sex would strengthen the defense claim that Jessica named [Mr. Horton] as the father to protect Randy and minimize her responsibility for her own consensual sexual activities. Id. at 7. 17 The Wisconsin appellate court nevertheless affirmed Mr. Horton's conviction. It held that the defense, even absent the precluded testimony, had an opportunity to present fully its theory of the case; therefore, Mr. Horton was not deprived of the right to a fair trial. For example, Jessica testified that she did not mention to her mother or to the police that Randy might be the father of her baby, even though she knew it was a possibility. She also admitted telling TaShea that Randy was the father, long before DNA test results were returned. Additionally, according to the state court, it was clear that Jessica was under time pressure, given that the pregnancy could not be hidden forever. Id. 18 After Mr. Horton's petition for review was denied by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He alleged that the Wisconsin trial court's limitations on TaShea's testimony and the exclusion of Trina's testimony violated his constitutional rights to confrontation, to compulsory process and to present a defense. 8 The district court denied Mr. Horton's petition. It held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals' conclusion that the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to present its theory of the case was not an unreasonable application of federal law. Specifically, although the excluded evidence was relevant, a review of the record indicated that there was sufficient evidence to support the theory that Jessica accused Mr. Horton to protect Randy and minimize her responsibility for her own consensual sexual activities. R.14 at 4 (quoting State v. Anthony H., 2000 WL 678535, at  (Wis.Ct.App.)). For example, Mr. Horton was permitted to show that Jessica gave contradictory answers concerning her familiarity with Randy her boyfriend, and the number of times they engaged in consensual sexual activity. Id. In light of this evidence, the district court concluded that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not act unreasonably in determining that the state trial court did not deny Mr. Horton the right to present a defense. II