## Facts

- Daniel Lee Smith, a California state prisoner, was charged and tried in California state court for child-molestation offenses involving a seven-year-old complaining witness.
- Before the child testified, the trial judge ordered that Smith could not make eye contact with the child while she testified.
- The trial judge justified the order based on the nature of the charges, Smith’s relationship with the child, and the risk that eye contact could influence or intimidate the child witness.
- The child testified live in the courtroom with Smith present.
- Smith’s counsel cross-examined the child.
- Smith was convicted, and the state courts rejected his Confrontation Clause challenge to the no-eye-contact restriction.
- Smith then filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against the warden, Neil McDowell, arguing that the state trial court’s restriction violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
- The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation in 2016 (the decision associated with the 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183225 citation).

## Issues

1. Whether a state trial court’s order barring a defendant from making eye contact with a seven-year-old witness during in-court testimony violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
2. Whether, on federal habeas review, the state courts’ rejection of that Confrontation Clause claim was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

## Decision

- The magistrate judge recommended that Smith’s § 2254 petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.
- The magistrate judge concluded that Smith had not shown that the state courts’ decision upholding the no-eye-contact restriction met AEDPA’s demanding standard for federal habeas relief.
- The magistrate judge treated the restriction as a limited control on courtroom conduct that did not eliminate live testimony, the defendant’s presence, or cross-examination.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas relief for a state prisoner is limited by AEDPA. A federal court may not grant relief unless the state court’s adjudication was (1) contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent, or (2) based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
- The Confrontation Clause generally protects in-court confrontation, including the opportunity to observe the witness’s testimony and to cross-examine the witness; the Supreme Court has also recognized that the right is not absolute in every respect and may allow measured limits in cases involving child witnesses, so long as the core testing function of cross-examination and reliability safeguards remain.
- A restriction that leaves the witness testifying in open court, with the defendant present and able to hear and see the witness and with counsel able to cross-examine, may be analyzed as a courtroom-management measure rather than a complete denial of face-to-face confrontation.
- On habeas review, the absence of Supreme Court holdings squarely forbidding the specific practice at issue (here, an eye-contact prohibition during testimony) weighs against a finding that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law.
- Even when constitutional error is alleged, habeas relief generally requires a showing of actual prejudice under the federal harmless-error standard applicable in § 2254 cases.

## Conclusion

The magistrate judge recommended denying Smith’s federal habeas petition because the state courts’ approval of the no-eye-contact order—imposed to reduce the risk of influencing or intimidating a seven-year-old witness while preserving live testimony and cross-examination—was not shown to be contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court Confrontation Clause law under AEDPA.


Smith v. McDowell, No. EDCV 15-1844-VAP (AGR), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183225 (2016)