Carlson Sr. v. Attorney General, No. 13-16535 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of willful infliction of harm or injury to a child, appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition. The district court denied the petition, concluding that the trial court’s determination that petitioner forfeited his Confrontation Clause rights was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine as pursuant to Giles v. California. The court affirmed, concluding that the trial court's finding that petitioner himself actively procured the witnesses' failure to appear was not objectively unreasonable in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceedings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Leif Carlson, Sr.’s habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for willful infliction of harm or injury to a child, in a case in which the trial court, invoking the forfeiture-by- wrongdoing doctrine, determined that Carlson had surrendered his Sixth Amendment right to confront his wife and son who did not appear in court but whose statements were admitted through the testimony of a police officer. The panel held that Supreme Court authority clearly establishes that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine applies where there has been affirmative action on the part of the defendant that produces the desired result, non- appearance by a prospective witness against him in a criminal case; and that simple tolerance of, or failure to foil, a third party’s previously express decision either to skip town himself rather than testifying or to prevent another witness from appearing is not a sufficient reason to foreclose a defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights at trial. The panel held that because the trial court could have reasonably inferred on the record before it that Carlson directly participated in securing his wife’s and son’s absence, and because Supreme Court authority permits application of the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception in such circumstances, admission of their statements was not an CARLSON V. ATT’Y GEN. OF CAL. 3 objectively unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.
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.