When the prosecutor got an adverse evidentiary ruling, he dismissed and refiled the same day in a different courthouse, ensuring that a different judge would preside. He ultimately got a more favorable ruling that allowed him to present dramatically more irrelevant, inflammatory evidence against Petitioner Jason Green. Numerous courts have recognized the unfairness of what happened. Superior Court Judge Lomeli found the prosecutor's action "disturbing" if done to avoid an adverse ruling. (Pet. App. 191.) The California Court of Appeal expressed "skepticism" about the prosecutor's purported valid reason for refiling the case in the Central District. (Pet. App. 29.) So, too, the federal magistrate judge found the prosecutor's forum shopping "very troubling." (Pet. App. 80.) Yet, the federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, held that relief is precluded because no clearly established federal law addresses the exact unfairness of forum shopping.

Did the Ninth Circuit take an inappropriately narrow view of what constitutes clearly established federal law in conflict with this Court's treatment of the issue in Panetti v. Quarterman and Lockyer v. Andrade?

Did the Ninth Circuit take an inappropriately narrow view of what constitutes clearly established federal law in conflict with this Court's treatment of the issue in Panetti v. Quarterman and Lockyer v. Andrade?