Opinion ID: 618808
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Headmaster’s Testimony

Text: Applicant complains of testimony by the headmaster of the victim’s school, stating his opinion that the victim was a truthful person. The OCCA held that the testimony was admissible under the Oklahoma rules of evidence allowing such testimony once the victim’s veracity has been challenged. Apparently, Applicant’s counsel had challenged the victim’s credibility on cross-examination. Applicant claims that the rule could not be so broad because then “every complaining witness in [a] criminal case could be assisted with character witness testimony simply by virtue of being cross-examined.” Aplt. Br. at 15. But he fails to explain how the OCCA’s ruling was contrary to—or an unreasonable application of—clearly established federal law. He cites no Supreme Court opinion that would have required exclusion of the headmaster’s testimony. As a consequence, reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s determination that Applicant was not entitled to habeas relief on this ground. -4-