U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008

Stoltie v. Tilton

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 19, 2008 · Reinhardt, Miner, Berzon

538 F.3d 1296; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17631; 2008 WL 3843907 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Jonathan Libby, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for the petitioner-appellee., Heather F. Crawford, Deputy Attorney General for the State of CA, San Diego, California, for the respondent-appellant.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Ernest Joseph Tibbels, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent v. The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner (Colo. 2022)
(HC) Schuster v. Espinoza (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2019)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

We AFFIRM the district court’s decision, and adopt its opinion in Stoltie v. California, reported at 501 F.Supp.2d 1252 (C.D.Cal. 2007), except for Section III.C., as to which we express no view. As the state acknowledged at oral argument, even the state appellate court misunderstood the confused and confusing explanation of reasonable doubt provided to the jury by the trial judge. This error led it to apply in an unreasonable manner clearly established Supreme Court law regarding reasonable doubt. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993); Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39, 111 S.Ct. 328, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970).

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.