United States Ninth Circuit

In an action claiming that California Proposition 115 (Prop. 115), the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act, violated plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, judgment on the pleadings for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the admission of hearsay statements at a preliminary hearing does not violate the Confrontation Clause, and thus Prop. 115 does not violate the Sixth Amendment; and 2) the preliminary hearing was not required to include the right of confrontation in order to satisfy the requirements of due process.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/17/2010
• Published 05/17/2010

Judges

• Before: A. WALLACE TASHIMA and SIDNEY R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAM STAFFORD, Senior District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Cyrus Zal, Folsom, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Michael S. Jamison, Office of the Nevada County Counsel, Nevada City, CA, for defendant-appellee County of Nevada.