Legal Opinion
Edmund Y. Chein v. Richard Shumsky, Chief Probation Officer La County California State Attorney General
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided March 14, 2003No. 01-56320PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge RAWLINSON; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge SHEA.
OPINION
RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge:
Edmund Chein (“Chein”) appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, chal*750lenging his conviction following a jury trial on three counts of perjury.
Chein asserts that he was deprived of his due process rights under law when: (1) the judge who presided over one of the underlying civil trials testified in Chein’s perjury trial; and (2) the prosecutor repeatedly referred to the facts of the underlying case in violation of an express…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Picard v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Bronston v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- William Lee Shackleford v. Susan Hubbard, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Scott BARRON, Jr., Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- James Earl Hines v. J. J. Enomoto, Director, California Department of Corrections, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Edmund Y. Chein v. Richard Shumsky, Chief Probation Officer La County California State Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Hernandez v. CastroCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003