Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Raynard Cummings v. Michael Martel

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 11, 2015No. 11-99011Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Scannlain, Circuit Judge

I agree with Judge McKeown that the district court’s decision to deny the petition for habeas corpus must be affirmed. Therefore, I concur in her opinion, and in its excellent reasoning — except as to Section I.A. I respectfully dissent from Section I.A., and write separately to explain why the California Supreme Court’s conclusion that Deputy LaCasella was not a “key witness” under Turner must be afforded AEDPA deference.

I

I begin by noting that Section I.A. is dicta — whether it is included or excised, the result is the same because, as Section I.B. persuasively explains, Cummings cannot…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. White v. WoodallSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  2. People v. CummingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Turner v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API