United States Ninth Circuit

In a murder prosecution, the denial of petitioner's habeas petition is affirmed where, because the Supreme Court has not clearly established whether and in what circumstances the attorney-client privilege must give way in order to protect a defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, the California state court could not have unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law when it denied petitioner access to an allegedly exculpatory letter sent by a witness.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/24/2009
• Decided 06/21/2010
• Published 06/21/2010

Judges

• Before ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, ANDREWJ. KLEINFELD, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, BARRY G. SILVERMAN, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, SANDRA S. IKUTA, and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Seymour I. Amster, Van Nuys, CA, for the petitioner-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for the respondents-appellees.