Flournoy, Jr. v. Small, et al., No. 11-55015 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted in a California court of one count of forcible rape and one count of assault with intent to commit rape. Petitioner appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner first contended that the trial court permitted a forensic analyst to testify based on the results of scientific tests performed and reports prepared by other analysts in violation of his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right. The court held that this claim failed because there was no clearly established federal law, based on decisions of the Supreme Court, that held that such testimony violated the Confrontation Clause in circumstances where the testifying witness participated in and reviewed the crime lab's work, even though she did not personally conduct all the testing herself. The court also concluded that petitioner's trial counsel's failure to object based on the Confrontation Clause to the analyst's testimony did not represent deficient performance and did not prejudice petitioner. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
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.