Barillas v. Hill
- Van Keulen
- 3:22-cv-02957
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Barillas v. Hill, Judge Van Keulen ordered a response to Jose Humberto Barillas’s petition challenging his state sentence after finding three evidence claims legally cognizable.
Jose Humberto Barillas and the respondent, James S. Hill; the case was allowed to proceed to the respondent’s response.
What happened
In Barillas v. Hill, Jose Humberto Barillas asked the federal court to review his state-court sentence of 80 years in prison. The state appellate courts had upheld the judgment and denied further review before he filed this case.
Barillas raised three claims about evidence at trial: admitting expert testimony about child molestation, admitting additional related evidence, and excluding defense expert testimony. The court said these claims could involve federal constitutional rights to a fair trial and to present a defense.
The court ordered the respondent to explain why the petition should not be granted and set deadlines for an answer or a procedural motion, followed by Barillas’s reply. Judge Susan Van Keulen did not decide whether Barillas should receive habeas relief in this order.
The detailed version
- Barillas v. Hill · No. 3:22-cv-02957
- Van Keulen
- Aug. 15, 2022
Background
Jose Humberto Barillas, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his state-court custody. The Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County sentenced him on June 19, 2017, to 80 years in state prison for violating California Penal Code §§ 288.5 and 288(b)(1). The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on July 18, 2019. The California Supreme Court denied direct review on December 7, 2020. Barillas later filed a state habeas petition, which the Sixth District Court of Appeal denied on January 25, 2021. He filed this federal action no earlier than May 3, 2022.
Claims
The petition raised three claims concerning the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial:
- The trial court improperly admitted expert testimony regarding child molestation.
- The trial court improperly admitted additional evidence regarding child molestation.
- The trial court improperly excluded defense expert testimony.
The court explained that improper admission or exclusion of evidence may violate a defendant’s federal constitutional right to a fair trial or the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. Construing the petition liberally, the court concluded that the three claims presented legally cognizable federal claims—that is, claims that could be considered in a federal habeas proceeding.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause, directing the respondent to explain why the petition should not be granted. It ordered the respondent to file an answer by November 15, 2022, and to provide the relevant portions of the state trial record. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by that date. If an answer or motion were filed, Barillas could respond by December 15, 2022, with a further deadline for a respondent’s reply if a motion to dismiss were filed.
This order did not decide the merits of Barillas’s three claims or grant habeas relief. It allowed the case to proceed to a response from the respondent. The court also warned that failure to prosecute the case or comply with court orders could result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.