Stoltie v. Tilton, No. 07-56079 (9th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN JOSEPH STOLTIE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant. ï£¼ ï£½ ï£¾ No. 07-56079 D.C. No. CV-06-00289-DDP OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 6, 2008 Pasadena, California Filed August 19, 2008 Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, Roger J. Miner,* Senior Circuit Judge and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judge. Per Curiam Opinion *The Honorable Roger J. Miner, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. 11025 11026 STOLTIE v. TILTON COUNSEL Jonathan Libby, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California, for the petitioner-appellee. Heather F. Crawford, Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, San Diego, California, for the respondentappellant. OPINION PER CURIAM: We AFFIRM the district court s decision, and adopt its opinion in Stoltie v. California, reported at 501 F. Supp.2d 1252 (C.D. Cal. 2007), except for Section III.C., as to which we express no view. As the state acknowledged at oral argument, even the state appellate court misunderstood the confused and confusing explanation of reasonable doubt provided to the jury by the trial judge. This error led it to apply in an unreasonable manner clearly established Supreme Court law regarding reasonable doubt. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993); Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). AFFIRMED. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.

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.