Stoltie v. Tilton
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN JOSEPH STOLTIE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary of the Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 07-56079 D.C. No. CV-06-00289-DDP OPINION
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 6, 2008--Pasadena, California Filed August 19, 2008 Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, Roger J. Miner,* Senior Circuit Judge and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judge. Per Curiam Opinion
*The Honorable Roger J. Miner, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
STOLTIE v. TILTON
COUNSEL Jonathan Libby, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California, for the petitioner-appellee. Heather F. Crawford, Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, San Diego, California, for the respondentappellant.
OPINION PER CURIAM: We AFFIRM the district court's decision, and adopt its opinion in Stoltie v. California, reported at 501 F. Supp.2d 1252 (C.D. Cal. 2007), except for Section III.C., as to which we express no view. As the state acknowledged at oral argument, even the state appellate court misunderstood the confused and confusing explanation of reasonable doubt provided to the jury by the trial judge. This error led it to apply in an unreasonable manner clearly established Supreme Court law regarding reasonable doubt. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993); Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). AFFIRMED.
PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE--U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST--SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?