Varghese v. Uribe, Jr., et al., No. 11-55686 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of murder, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner claimed that the trial court's ruling regarding the testing of a blood sample violated his constitutional rights to counsel and due process. The court concluded that the Supreme Court had not squarely addressed petitioner's claim or articulated a rule that clearly extended to the present case; the California Court of Appeal's decision therefore could not be said to have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act; and, therefore, the court deferred to the state court and affirmed the conviction.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a murder conviction. Petitioner sought to test the remainder of a blood sample after the prosecution had conducted an initial DNA test, with no obligation to reveal the test results to the prosecution. The panel held that the state trial court’s compromise – to have either a neutral laboratory or the defense expert test the blood, but only if the results were made available to both parties – was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 23, 2013.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.