Tamekca Walker v. Ron Davis

14-15342Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSep 24, 2015

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAMEKCA WALKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RON DAVIS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-15342
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01882-GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 17, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: CALLAHAN, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Tamekca Walker appeals the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254
habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under § 2253, and we affirm.1
FILED
SEP 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts we do not recount them
here.

-- 1 of 2 --

Walker contends the introduction at trial of potentially irrelevant and
prejudicial autopsy photographs of her foster daughter violated her due process
rights. Walker’s petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) and cannot be granted unless the state court’s
adjudication was: (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States”; or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” § 2254(d).
Walker argues that the state court’s decision was contrary to clearly established
Supreme Court law. We are bound, however, by the holding in Holley v.
Yarborough that the Supreme court “has not yet made a clear ruling that admission
of irrelevant or overtly prejudicial evidence constitutes a due process violation
sufficient to warrant issuance of the writ.” 568 F.3d 1091, 1101 (9th Cir. 2009).
We cannot say that the state court’s decision to admit potentially irrelevant and
prejudicial autopsy photographs over Walker’s objection was contrary to clearly
established federal law. Walker’s petition must be denied.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.