Ortiz v. Yates, No. 11-56383 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted of willful infliction of corporal injury to his spouse. Defendant contended that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses when the trial judge precluded his counsel from asking defendant's wife whether she was afraid to deviate from her initial incriminating statement to the police because of threats allegedly made against her by the prosecutor. The court held that clearly established federal law, as set forth by the Supreme Court, indicated that the trial court committed constitutional error by denying petitioner the right to meaningful cross-examination of the prosecution's leading witness. The California Court of Appeal's conclusion that the trial court's curtailment did not reach constitutional magnitude was objectively unreasonable, and had a substantial injurious effect on petitioner's verdict. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court denying habeas corpus and remanded for issuance of the writ.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition and remanded for issuance of the writ in a case in which the defendant, who was convicted of willful infliction of corporal injury to his spouse, maintained that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses when the trial judge precluded him cross- examining his wife as to whether she was afraid to deviate from her initial incriminating statement because of threats allegedly made against her by the prosecutor. The panel held that the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the trial court’s curtailment did not reach constitutional magnitude was objectively unreasonable. The panel also held that the error, which had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict, was not harmless. Judge Fernandez dissented because even if there was a violation of the confrontation clause, he is satisfied the error was harmless.
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.