Raynard Cummings v. Michael Martel
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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
- White v. WoodallSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
- People v. CummingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Turner v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965