FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 14 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN T. EGGLESTON, No. 19-35145
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05159-BHS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RON HAYNES,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: CLIFTON, D.M. FISHER,*** and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Brian T. Eggleston appeals the federal district court’s denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas relief. Reviewing the district court’s judgment
de novo, see Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997, 1002 (9th Cir. 2004), we affirm.
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), an
application for a writ of habeas corpus may be granted only if the state court’s
adjudication “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Eggleston argues that the state trial court’s exclusion of demonstrative video
evidence violated his clearly established constitutional right to present a defense.
We disagree. Because “well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to
exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such
as . . . potential to mislead the jury,” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 326
(2006), and because a “fairminded jurist” could conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in applying such a rule here, Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S.
652, 664 (2004), we hold that the exclusion did not violate Eggleston’s clearly
established right.
2
Eggleston sought to introduce the video—depicting deputies reenacting their
movements during the shooting—to impeach the government’s crime
reconstructionist, who had used the video in forming his opinions of where
Eggleston and the deputies were located during the shooting. The trial court
excluded the video as misleading, noting, among other things, that it depicted one
of the officers as a mere silhouette, which is not how he would have appeared in
person during the shooting. Instead, the court admitted transcripts of the officers’
statements in the video to challenge the government’s theory of the case.
The Supreme Court has never held that excluding demonstrative video
evidence of this kind violates the right to present a defense. Nor when we consider
“(1) the probative value of the excluded evidence on the central issue; (2) its
reliability; (3) whether it is capable of evaluation by the trier of fact; (4) whether it
is the sole evidence on the issue or merely cumulative; and (5) whether it
constitutes a major part of the attempted defense,” Chia, 360 F.3d at 1004, can we
conclude that the exclusion was unreasonable. The trial court consciously balanced
the evidence’s probative value against its potential to mislead. The court concluded
that the evidence’s reliability and evaluative prospects for the trier of fact was in
question because of its misleading depiction of the officer’s appearance. The
evidence was not the sole evidence on the issue of where the participants in the
3
shooting were standing: the transcripts of what the officers said on the video, their
in-court testimony, and the physical evidence at the crime scene all went to this
question. These other forms of evidence were, moreover, a part of the attempted
defense. The trial judge’s exclusion did not violate Eggleston’s clearly established
constitutional right to present a defense.
AFFIRMED.
4