Cedric L. Daniels v. Dave Davey, Warden

Could a jurist of reason find that petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process when the trial court: a. refused to admit impeachment evidence against the prosecution’s key witnesses? b. admitted hearsay statements without any recognized exception? Could a jurist of reason find that petitioner was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process when the trial court: a. allowed the prosecution to impeach his expert witness, Scott Fraser, with highly prejudicial and irrelevant evidence, b. failed to properly instruct the jury on the use of co-conspirator statements c. instructed the jury that Mixon and Walker were accomplices as a matter of law. d. instructing the jury that it could consider how certain a witness claimed to be of his or her identification in evaluating the witnesses’ identification of petitioner. e. finding that petitioner’s juvenile adjudications constituted strikes for the purpose of California’s Three Strikes Law, and/or f. denying petitioner’s motion to strike his prior convictions and sentenced him pursuant to California’s Three Strikes law? Could a jurist of reason find that petitioner was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process when there was no substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding on the great bodily injury enhancement? List of all parties Petitioner Cedric L. Daniels. Respondents Dave DAVEY, Warden, and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.