Opinion ID: 165371
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unrelated Murder Trial

Text: 86 Dr. Morall had been a prosecution advisor in the unrelated murder trial of James King. 11 She had prepared some written materials in the King case, which provided advice to the prosecution on various matters. When defense counsel attempted to cross-examine her with respect to statements in the written materials, the trial court sustained a prosecution objection. Tr. of Jury Trial, R. Vol. 39 at 161-62. 87 Saiz argues the court impermissibly restricted her right to cross-examine Dr. Morall, in violation of her rights under the Confrontation Clause. On direct appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals rejected this argument, concluding that because the memorandum concerned the psychiatrist's involvement in another case, it was, at most, only marginally relevant, and in any event, the trial court allowed liberal cross-examination on the subject of the psychiatrist's involvement in the other criminal trial generally. Saiz, 923 P.2d at 204. The district court below also rejected this claim: 88 The record indicates that the trial court's decision to prohibit the use of the memorandum as only marginally relevant, while still providing the defense with ample opportunity to explore any possible bias on the part of Dr. Morall, is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of the standards for placing reasonable limits on the Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination articulated in Van Arsdall. 89 Order at 22-23 (citation omitted). After conducting our own independent review of the record, we agree with the district court that the Colorado Court of Appeals' determination that Saiz's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the limits placed on her cross-examination of Dr. Morall concerning Dr. Morall's involvement in the King case was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.