## Facts

- Jeffrey Washington was convicted in New York state court of raping his five-year-old daughter during a weekend visit in April 1991.
- Washington did not dispute that the child had been sexually abused but argued that someone else committed the rape and that the child was coached by her mother (and possibly a godmother) to accuse him.
- To support a coaching/suggestion defense, Washington sought to present expert testimony (Dr. Stephen Ceci) about the suggestibility of young children when exposed to leading or repeated interviewing techniques.
- The trial court excluded the proposed expert testimony, citing an inadequate factual foundation, the expert’s lack of prior qualification in New York courts, and the view that the topic was within the knowledge of average jurors.
- Washington pursued his defense theory through cross-examination of witnesses and argument to the jury, notwithstanding the exclusion of the expert.

## Issues

1. Whether the state courts “adjudicated on the merits” Washington’s federal constitutional claim so that AEDPA deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) applied.
2. Whether excluding expert testimony on child suggestibility violated Washington’s federal constitutional right to present a defense under the Due Process Clause and the Compulsory Process Clause.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held that the federal constitutional claim was not adjudicated on the merits in state court; therefore, AEDPA’s deferential standard did not apply.
- Applying pre-AEDPA (de novo) review, the court affirmed denial of habeas relief.
- The court concluded that exclusion of the expert testimony did not deny Washington a fundamentally fair trial and was not an arbitrary or disproportionate restriction on his ability to present a defense.

## Legal Principles

- AEDPA deference under § 2254(d) applies only when the state court has actually adjudicated the federal claim on the merits; absent such an adjudication, federal habeas review proceeds under pre-AEDPA standards.
- A defendant has a constitutional right to present witnesses and evidence, but that right is subject to reasonable evidentiary rules.
- Exclusion of defense evidence violates due process only if it is arbitrary or disproportionate to legitimate evidentiary purposes, infringes a weighty defense interest, and renders the trial fundamentally unfair.
- On habeas review, ordinary state-law evidentiary error is not enough; the petitioner must show the ruling so infected the trial with unfairness as to amount to a due process violation.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit ruled that AEDPA deference was unavailable because the state courts did not decide the federal claim on the merits, but it still denied habeas relief because the exclusion of expert testimony on child suggestibility did not deprive Washington of a meaningful opportunity to present his defense or of a fundamentally fair trial.


Washington v. Schriver, 255 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2001)