TAMEKCA WALKER V. RON DAVIS, No. 14-15342 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2015 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK TAMEKCA WALKER, Petitioner - Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-15342 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01882-GGH v. MEMORANDUM* RON DAVIS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted September 17, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: CALLAHAN, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Tamekca Walker appeals the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under § 2253, and we affirm.1 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1 here. Because the parties are familiar with the facts we do not recount them Walker contends the introduction at trial of potentially irrelevant and prejudicial autopsy photographs of her foster daughter violated her due process rights. Walker’s petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) and cannot be granted unless the state court’s adjudication was: (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” § 2254(d). Walker argues that the state court’s decision was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law. We are bound, however, by the holding in Holley v. Yarborough that the Supreme court “has not yet made a clear ruling that admission of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence constitutes a due process violation sufficient to warrant issuance of the writ.” 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009). We cannot say that the state court’s decision to admit potentially irrelevant and prejudicial autopsy photographs over Walker’s objection was contrary to clearly established federal law. Walker’s petition must be denied. AFFIRMED. 2

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.