United States District Court United States District Court

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 daughters MarciaandLisa, paidyounggirlstotake (“CT”) at94-98.) on hisothergranddaughterAlicia;andonecount of counts ofcommitting alewdactonhisgranddaught and reviewingthelegalauthority,Courthereby DENIESthepetitionfor writof habeascorpus. committing alewdactonminor. After consideringtherecord,parties’papersandarguments, habeas corpuspursuantto28U.S.C.§2254, Department ofCorrections, in hiscapacityasheadoftheCalifornia EDWARD ALAMEIDA,JR., v. RUSSELL FRANKLINSCHROEDER, Case 3:03-cv-04095-JSWDocument18Filed01/31/06Page1of7 At trial,theprosecution introduced evidencethatSchroederhadpreviously molested his On May14,1999,fivecountsofsexualmisconduct Now before theCourtisRussellFranklinSchroeder’s(“Schroeder”)petitionfor writof Respondent. Petitioner, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT / BACKGROUND concerning hisconvictionforfourcountsof er Jessica;onecountofcommitting alewdact off theirclothes,offered topayyounggirlsfor exhibiting harmful material. (Clerk’sTranscript WRIT OFHABEASCORPUS ORDER DENYINGPETITIONFOR No. C03-04095JSW were filedagainstSchroeder:three United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the UnitedStates;or(2) resulted inadecisionthatwasbasedonanunreasonable determination of unreasonable application of,clearlyestablishedFederallaw,asdetermined by theSupreme Courtof court’s adjudicationofthe claim: “(1)resultedin sentence withrespecttoanyclaim thatwasadjudicatedonthemerits instatecourtunlessthe 327 (1997); Penalty Act(“AEDPA”),sotheprovisionsofthat actapply. petition inthiscasewasfiled after theeffective dateof theAntiterrorism andEffective Death violation oftheConstitutionorlawstreaties custody pursuanttothejudgment ofaStatecourtonlyonthegroundthatheisincustody until after theoffenses werepurportedly committed. 1108 violatestheprohibitionofexpostfactolawsbecauseSectiondidnotbecome effective petition forwritofhabeascorpusbeforethisCourtonAugust30,2004. then vacatedtheharmful matter count.After exhausting stateremedies, Schroederfiledanamended requested thatthepetitionbeheldinabeyancewhileheexhaustedallstateremedies. Thestatecourt S097513 (June12,2002). App. 6Dist.Mar.20,2002).TheCaliforniaSupreme Courtdeniedreview. Court ofAppealaffirmed theconviction. all fivecountsandlatersentencedhim toaterm Transcript (“RT”)at463-65.) section 1108(“Section1108”)todemonstrate apropensitytocommit sexualoffenses.(Reporter’s 384.) Thecourtpermitted thisevidenceofpriorsexualoffensesunderCaliforniaEvidenceCode oral sex,andhadbeenseennakedbyyounggirls.( Case 3:03-cv-04095-JSWDocument18Filed01/31/06Page2of7 Under AEDPA,adistrictcourtmay notgr This Courtmay entertainapetitionfor awritof habeascorpus“in behalf of apersonin Schroeder assertsthattheadmission ofhispriorunchargedsexualoffensesunderSection On September 8,2003,Schroederfiledapetitionforwritofhabeascorpus inthisCourt,but On May22,2000,thejuryinSantaClaraCountySuperiorCourtconvictedSchroederof Jeffries v.Wood , 114F.3d1484,1499-1500(9thCir.1997). STANDARD OFREVIEW People v.Schroeder, of theUnitedStates.”28U.S.C.§2254(a).The of12years.(CTat889-891,940.)TheCalifornia adecisionthatwascontrary to,orinvolvedan ant apetitionchallengingstateconvictionor 2 Id . at286-297,361-69, See H021715,2002WL 436944(Cal.

Lindh v.Murphy 232-36, 333-341,375- People v.Schroeder , 521U.S.320, , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 have occurredin1993,prior toSection1108’senact of 1996.Cal.Evid.Code §1108;Cal.Gov’tC sexual offensesandthathewaslikelytohavecommitted thechargedcrime. (RTat712-13.) Schroeder hadcommitted theprioroffenses, they couldinfer thathehadadispositiontocommit sexual offensesunderSection1108.(RTat463-65.) Thejurywasinstructedthat,iftheyfound prejudicial effects.Cal.Evid.Code§352. exclusion ofotherwiseadmissible evidencewhenitsprobativevalueisoutweighedbypotentially 1108 issubjecttobalancingunderCaliforniaEvidenceCodesection352,whichprovidesforthe disposition tocommit sexualoffenses.Cal.Evid.Code§1108.EvidenceofferedunderSection sexual offense,evidenceofprioroffensesisadmissible forthepurposeofshowinga charged crime. Cal.Evid.Code§1101.However,incaseswhichthedefendantisaccusedofa court’s applicationofclearlyestablishedfederallawwas“objectivelyunreasonable.” making the“unreasonableapplication”inquiry,federalhabeascourt shouldaskwhetherthestate erroneously orincorrectly.Rather,thatapplicationmust alsobeunreasonable.” independent judgment thattherelevant state-courtdecisionappliedclearlyestablishedfederallaw prisoner’s case.” legal principlefrom [the]Court’sdecisionsbutunreas clause, afederalhabeascourtmay grantthewritifstatecourtidentifiescorrectgoverning facts.” state courtdecidesacasedifferentlythan[the]Courthasonsetofmaterially indistinguishable arrives ataconclusionoppositetothatreachedby[t the factsinlightofevidencepresentedStatecourtproceeding.”28U.S.C§2254(d). Case 3:03-cv-04095-JSWDocument18Filed01/31/06Page3of7 Williams v.Taylor A “federalhabeascourtmay notissuethewritsimply becausethatcourtconcludesinits The legislatureenactedSection 1108in1995,andthelawbecame effectiveatthebeginning Despite Schroeder’sobjections,thetrialcourtadmitted theevidenceof hisprioruncharged In general,evidenceofpastmisconduct isnotadmissible toshowpropensitycommit the “Under the‘contraryto’clause,afederalhabeascourtmay grantthewritifstatecourt Id . at413. , 529U.S.362,412-13(2000).“Underthe‘unreasonableapplication’ ANALYSIS ode §9600.Schroeder’s offensesarepurportedto 3 he Supreme] Courtonaquestionoflaworifthe ment. (CTat94-98.)Hetherefore contends onably appliesthatprincipletothefactsof Id . at411.When Id . at409. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 evidence issufficientto convict thedefendant.” admissibility of evidenceissimply different from thequestionwhetherproperlyadmitted one atissuein presumption.” because theydonotconcernwhethertheadmissible evidenceissufficienttoovercome the evidence tobeadmitted attrial,[therules]donotallsubvertthepresumption ofinnocence, Clause. “Ordinaryrulesofevidence.donotviolate theClause”because“bysimply permitting than previouslyrequired.” the amendment fitintothefourthcategorybecau corroboration requirement ifthevictim wasunder age18. testimony unlessthevictim wasunderage14.Later,thestatuteamended to remove the the chargedsexualoffense,aTexasstatuterequiredcorroboratingevidencetosupportvictim’s evidence necessarytomeet thatburden.” fourth categoryencompasses lawsthat“lower Carmell v.Texas order toconvicttheoffender.” less, ordifferent,testimony, thanthelawrequiredattime ofthecommission oftheoffence,in punishment thanwhencommitted, and4)a“lawthataltersthelegalrulesofevidence,receives a lawthataggravatescrime ormakes itgreaterthanwhencommitted, 3)alawthatinflicts greater applied retroactively:1)alawthatmakes anactcriminal eventhoughinnocentwhencommitted, 2) Art. I,§10.TheSupreme Courthasidentifiedf of Attainder,expostfactoLaw,orLawimpairing trial, violatestheprohibitionofexpostfactolaws. commission ofhisoffenses.Heclaims theretr that Section1108isanexpostfactolawshouldnotapplyinhiscasebecauseitpost-datedthe Case 3:03-cv-04095-JSWDocument18Filed01/31/06Page4of7 The Courtmade clear, however, thatnotallevidentiaryrulesimplicate theExPostFacto The Supreme Courthasrepeatedlyendorsedthesecategories,includingthefourthcategory. The ExPostFactoClauseof theConstitutionprovidesthat“[n]o stateshall.passanyBill Carmell Id. , 529U.S.513,525,537(2000).Thefourthcategoryisatissueinthiscase. at 533n.23.TheCourtdifferentiatedsufficiency oftheevidencerules,like , withadmissibility rules,suchastheoneatissueinthiscase.“The issueof Id . at531. Calder v.Bull Id . at541.Atthetime the , 3U.S.386,390(1798). theburdenofproof”or“reducequantum of oactive applicationofSection1108duringhis2000 se it“authorize[d]aconvictiononlessevidence our categoriesofexpostfactolawsthatcannotbe Id 4 the ObligationofContracts..”U.S.Const., . at546.Additionally,the Courtexplainedthat Id . at517-18.TheCourtdetermined that Carmell defendant committed United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 concerning alawthatalters thelegalrulesof evidence“wasnotintendedtoprohibitthe application enactment ofSection1108. violated theExPostFacto Clausebecausethechargedoffensetookplace in1995,priortothe1996 had previouslycommitted rape. Id does notviolatetheExPostFactoClause. reasonable doubt.” consider astodefendant’sguilt,itdidnotlessentheprosecution’sburdenprovehisguiltbeyond a crimes.” (RTat1756.)So,“[w]hile[Section1108]may haveaddedtotheevidencejurycould was “notsufficientbyitselftoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthathecommitted thecharged proof. ThejurywasspecificallyinstructedthattheevidenceofSchroeder’spriorsexualoffenses In contrast,Section1108doesnotchangetheamount ofevidencenecessarytomeet theburdenof By removing thecorroborationrequirement, the prosecutioncouldmet itsburdenwithlessevidence. required, whileaftertheamendment, testimony alonewassufficient. burden ofproof.Beforetheamendment, the victim’s testimony andcorroborationwereboth meeting theburdenofproof.”Petitioner’sMemorandum at 15. is “virtuallyidenticalto sufficiency of theevidencerulesandadmissibility of evidencerules.Schroederclaims thathiscase from asufficiencyrule. addresses onlywhattypeofevidencecanbeadmitted, itisanadmissibility rule,distinguishable evidence thatwaspreviouslyexcludedforpurposesofshowingpropensity.BecauseSection1108 1108 doesnotaltertheamount ofevidencenecessarytoconvict;itmerely allowstheadmission of introduced at proof’ requiredtoconvictfrom thoselawsthatmerely respectwhatkindofevidencemay be another Supreme Courtdecision“specificallydistinguishedlawsthat‘alterthedegree.of . at186.Duringdefendant’strialforrape,thecourt admitted evidence underSection1108thathe Case 3:03-cv-04095-JSWDocument18Filed01/31/06Page5of7 The CaliforniaSupreme Courtin The amendment atissuein Schroeder’s relianceon trial.” People v.Fitch Id . at550(referringto Carmell Id . at185.Thecourtexplained that Carmell ” becauseSection1108“changedthesufficiencyoffacts.for Id Carmell . at177.Defendantassertedthattheapplication of Section1108 , 55Cal.App.4th172,182-83(1997).Therefore, Section1108 ismisplaced becauseofthisimportant distinctionbetween Fitch changed theamount ofevidencenecessarytomeet the Hopt v.TerritoryofUtah rejectedanexpostfactochallengetoSection1108. 5 Calder , 110U.S.574(1884)).Section Carmell ’s fourthcategory , 529U.S.at517-18. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (citations omitted). Although extends competency toawitnessmay validlyoperateinthetrialof aprioroffense.” Therefore, “anewruleofevidencewhichadmits evidencenotpreviouslyadmissible orwhich of newevidentiaryrulesintrialsfor crimes committed before thechanges.” Cal. 2003).Thecourtofappealfoundtheevidence admissible underSection1109. defendant’s trialforthemurder ofhiswife. Carmell to convict..Section1108changedevidenceadmissibility rules,butthatwaspermissible under “did notlowertheburdenofproofforprosecutionorchangequantum ofevidencenecessary 1996, wasanexpostfactolaw. sexual offensestookplacebetween1991-1995,thedefendantclaimed thatSection1108,enactedin under Section1108thatthedefendanthadmolested otherchildren. Perez v.Duncan this basis. occurred before theappropriate sectionwentintoeffect. Allthreepetitionersweredeniedrelief on prior misconduct underSection1108or1109violatedexpostfactorightsbecausethechargedcrime similarly situatedpetitionerswhohavemade thesame claim asSchroeder–thattheadmission of Constitutional prohibitionagainstexpostfactolaws.Threedecisionsinthisdistrictinvolve prior domestic violenceactionsindomestic violencecasestoprovepropensity,doesnotviolatethe Section 1108,andsection1109oftheCaliforniaEvidenceCode,whichallowsadmission of rules of admissibility isconsistentwith merely topermit theintroduction ofatypeevidencethatwaspreviously inadmissible” andthat Clause. tried offense,andtherefore theapplicationofre Defendant arguedthatSection1109wasnotpart oftheCaliforniaEvidenceCodeattime ofthe Case 3:03-cv-04095-JSWDocument18Filed01/31/06Page6of7 In In Other post- anddidnotrunafouloftheExPostFactoClause.” Id. Niebauer v.Blanks Perez v.Duncan at *8.Inrejectingtheclaim, thecourtexplained thatthe“effectofsection1109was , 2005WL 2290311,*1(N.D.Cal.2005).Duringtrial,thecourtadmitted evidence Carmell , thedefendantwasconvictedofseveralsexualassaultsagainstchildren. districtcourtdecisionshaveruledthattheretroactiveapplicationof , thecourtadmitted evidenceof apriordomestic “scuffle” during Fitch Id . Inrejectingthisclaim, thecourtexplainedthatSection1108 pre-dates Carmell Niebauer v.Blanks Carmell troactive legislationviolated theExPostFacto . 6 , thecourt’sreasoningin Id . at*7. , 2003WL 22288155,*1,*7(N.D. Id . at*6.Becausethecharged Id . (citationsomitted). Fitch Id Id regarding . at*7. . at186 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Ex PostFactoClause. relevant evidence”andtherefore“didnotrunafouloftheExPostFactoClause.” evidence necessarytoconvict.” statute “didnotlowertheburdenofprooffor rights undertheExPostFactoClause. 2003). Defendantarguedthatthetrialcourterredinadmitting thisevidencebecauseitviolatedhis ae:Jnay3,20 Dated: January31,2006 shall closethefile. against hiscurrentandformer wives. current wife,thecourtadmitted Section1109evidenceofpriorincidentsdomestic violence ex postfactoproblem.” “changes torulesof evidencethat‘simply permit[ ] evidencetobeadmitted attrial’donotposean Case 3:03-cv-04095-JSWDocument18Filed01/31/06Page7of For theforegoing reasons, the petitionfor awritof habeascorpusis Likewise, theretroactiveapplicationofSection1108inSchroeder’strialdidnotviolate IT ISSOORDERED. In Chavarria v.Hamlet, Id . (quoting duringdefendant’strialforactsofdomestic violenceagainsthis Id . at*13.Rather,it“permitted thejurytoconsideradditional Carmell Chavarria v.Hamlet Id . at*9.Inrejectingtheclaim, thecourtexplainedthat CONCLUSION , 529U.S.at533n.23). the prosecutionanddidnotchangequantum of 7 UNITED STATESDISTRICTJUDGE JEFFREY S.WHITE , 2003WL 1563992,*3-4(N.D.Cal. DENIED.Theclerk Id .