⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears Hassan Bratcher's challenge to his kidnapping and rape convictions. A woman identified as Jane Doe alleged he held her against her will and sexually assaulted her; he disputed coercion. His first conviction was reversed after a deliberating juror was improperly removed. He was convicted again at a second trial. This appeal centers on an omitted jury instruction: to treat certain unrecorded oral statements attributed to the defendant as showing guilt with caution. The federal district court denied relief, finding no reasonable probability of a different result given the other evidence and credibility instructions. Bratcher's lawyer will argue that failing to secure the instruction undermined his defense; the state will argue that the evidence still supported the verdict. You'll hear Strickland: the test for constitutionally ineffective lawyering, requiring deficient performance and resulting prejudice. This is federal habeas review of the state conviction, not a new trial.

Bratcher v. Borla, et al. (No. 25-2606) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 27, 2026.