Opinion ID: 567438
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Christopher Kowal's Testimony

Text: 12 Petitioner contends that the use of Christopher Kowal's testimony violated his due process rights because the court did not observe the procedural safeguards required when examining a witness who has been hypnotized. This claim is without merit because Kowal was never hypnotized. 13 Another objection to Kowal's testimony is that, when the court made him its witness and permitted the prosecution to cross-examine him regarding his dream testimony, petitioner was denied confrontation and due process rights. 14 The court's decisions to make Kowal a court witness and to admit his testimony were based upon state evidentiary rules. It is a well-established rule that state court rulings on the admission of evidence '... may not be questioned in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, unless they render the trial so fundamentally unfair as to constitute a denial of federal rights.'  Logan v. Marshall, 680 F.2d 1121, 1123 (6th Cir.1982) (citation omitted). The court's decisions did not render the proceedings fundamentally unfair, particularly in light of the fact that petitioner's counsel conducted a lengthy cross-examination. 15