The prosecutor wrongly informed the complaining witness, Monica Doe, that she had a right to refuse to testify. At trial, she exercised that purported right selectively on direct examination until the court declared her unavailable—before any cross examination. Her preliminary-hearing testimony was admitted at trial. More troublingly, the court instructed the jury that it could consider Doe's demeanor as she testified on direct examination, holding a teddy bear. But the jury never saw her demeanor on cross-examination and how it might change when confronted with the inconsistencies of her prior accounts.

The Ninth Circuit denied habeas relief, reasoning that this Court's clear statements that a prosecutor must take reasonable steps to secure a witness's testimony shed no light on the prosecutor's obligations to correctly advise witnesses of the law. By refusing to apply this Court's clearly established Confrontation Clause precedent and assess whether affirmatively misadvising a witness is reasonable, did the Ninth Circuit allow a violation that rendered Ortiz's trial fundamentally unfair?

Did the Ninth Circuit err in refusing to apply clearly established Confrontation Clause precedent and assess whether the prosecutor's affirmative misadvising of a witness rendered Ortiz's trial fundamentally unfair?