Two California men are charged with murder based on the key testimony of a confidential informant. Although the informant testifies at a preliminary hearing, he invokes the Fifth Amendment at trial and refuses to answer any questions. The court admits the informant's preliminary hearing testimony over the defenses' objection. The two men are convicted and sentenced to life. They seek habeas review, alleging a violation of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. Ninth Circuit: Our review here is very limited. The defendants' lawyer had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing, even if the trial judge cut off some of that questioning. Given the "highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings" under AEDPA, it wasn't unreasonable for the state courts to find no Confrontation Clause violation.
The case is Gibbs v. Covello (9th Cir. Apr. 28, 2021).