Court Opinion

ID: 9470662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:12:23.945173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:02.251475
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in Parts I and II and in the result.
I agree that Nance’s Confrontation Clause claim was not exhausted.
I think there may be some question whether the exclusion of the evidence impeaching Julius’ testimony, even though it violated Illinois evidence law, rose to the level of a federal constitutional violation. It does not necessarily follow that, because *943evidence has been excluded in breach of state law, a constitutional violation has been shown. See Carbajol v. Fairman, 700 F.2d 397 at 401-402 (7th Cir.1983).1
But, if there has been a constitutional violation, I cannot agree that it was harmless. The excluded evidence involved not general evidence of Julius’ propensity to lie but specific lies about the matter in issue. The excluded evidence may be “cumulative” of other lies, but the evidence is so central it requires a leap of faith of which I am incapable to dismiss it as “harmless.”

. Perhaps, when it speaks of the error here as “harmless,” the majority is addressing the question whether the state violation rose to federal constitutional dimensions. But this is not entirely clear to me.