|
ERIK EARHART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. KHELLEH KONTEH, Respondent-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 06-00062—Herman J. Weber, District Judge.
Argued: June 16, 2009
Decided and Filed: December 18, 2009
Before: MOORE, GIBBONS, and FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Erik Earhart appeals the order of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Earhart alleges that the district court erred in failing to grant the writ because the State of Ohio violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by 1) forcing him to wear a stun belt during the entirety of his trial and 2) admitting into evidence the testimony of alleged victim F.T. by video deposition without a proper finding that the witness was unavailable. Finding that Earhart’s second issue has merit, we hold that the admission of the videotape deposition without a proper finding that the witness was constitutionally unavailable violated Earhart’s clearly established right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the district court and grant Earhart a conditional writ as to count four of the indictment, charging him with gross sexual imposition against F.T. Because Earhart is not entitled to relief upon the remainder of his claims, we affirm the judgment of the district court as to the remainder of the petition.
|
KWASI ACQUAAH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. |
|
On Petition for Review from a Final Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A79 669 319.
Submitted: December 3, 2009
Decided and Filed: December 18, 2009
Before: SILER, GILMAN, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Kwasi Acquaah, a native and citizen of Ghana, appeals a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying two separate motions to reopen his removal proceedings. An Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Acquaah removed in absentia when Acquaah failed to appear at his master-calendar hearing due to a mistaken belief as to the proper hearing date. For the reasons set forth below, we DENY Acquaah’s petition for review.