Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2d 35
We conclude that the court erred in summarily dismissing the Sec. 2254
petition. It is true that, ordinarily, issues concerning the admission of evidence,
scope of cross examination, or the like present solely state law questions (which
are not matters proper for a Sec. 2254 petition) and are not of constitutional
dimension. See Salemme v. Ristaino, 587 F.2d 81 (1st Cir.1978). However, an
evidentiary or other ruling so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process is an
appropriate basis for habeas relief. Given the latitude with which pro se
pleadings must be read, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30
L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), we cannot say with certainty, solely on the basis of the
petition (and without examination of the trial transcript, which has not been
filed), that petitioner necessarily will be unable to establish a constitutional
violation.
The judgment of dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded for further
proceedings.