Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8646462
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Gonzalez v. Woodford
No. 8646462 · Decided December 21, 2007
No. 8646462·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
December 21, 2007
Citation
No. 8646462
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Gonzalo Gonzalez was convicted by a California state jury of one count of lewd conduct with a child in violation of CaLPenal Code § 288. After exhausting his direct appeals, he filed a petition for federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , arguing that the state court committed a constitutional error by excluding from trial the expert witness in child psychology. The parties are familiar with the facts. We proceed to the law. Gonzalez’s petition, filed on April 7, 2006, is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). Under AEDPA, this court may grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or if the ruling was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.” Id. The trial court’s exclusion of the expert’s testimony was neither contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The expert’s exclusion did not deny Gonzalez a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense because he was not precluded from introducing factual evidence. Rather, he was barred merely from introducing expert testimony assisting the jury to evaluate the truthfulness of substantive evidence, such as the victim’s testimony. Such testimony may have been helpful to the jury but its exclusion did not constitute an unreasonable application of federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, specially concurring. I concur for the sole reason that the trial court’s exclusion of the expert testimony in this case was neither contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Gonzalo Gonzalez was convicted by a California state jury of one count of lewd conduct with a child in violation of CaLPenal Code § 288.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Gonzalo Gonzalez was convicted by a California state jury of one count of lewd conduct with a child in violation of CaLPenal Code § 288.
02After exhausting his direct appeals, he filed a petition for federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
03§ 2254 , arguing that the state court committed a constitutional error by excluding from trial the expert witness in child psychology.
04Gonzalez’s petition, filed on April 7, 2006, is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Gonzalo Gonzalez was convicted by a California state jury of one count of lewd conduct with a child in violation of CaLPenal Code § 288.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Gonzalez v. Woodford in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on December 21, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8646462 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.