UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
September 19, 2012
RAYMOND MCCLENDON, PETITIONER,
A. HEDGPETH, WARDEN,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael W. Fitzgerald United States District Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court has reviewed the entire record in this action, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge ("Report"), and petitioner's objections. The Court concurs with and accepts the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations contained in the Report after having made a de novo determination of the portions to which objections were directed.
Having reviewed the objections, the Court notes that, with respect to Petitioner's claim for denial of counsel of choice, Petitioner's objections appear to complain about more than his counsel's lack of preparation. But even if the objections -- and the Petition -- should be so construed, the result would not change.
On Petitioner's claim relating to the limitation of expert testimony, the Court finds that the trial court's refusal to admit Nair's answer to the question whether the techniques used by C.C.'s therapists were suggestive was proper (in addition to harmless); this testimony would have been cumulative, unfairly prejudicial and lacked foundation.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.