Blackston v. Rapelje, 907 F. Supp. 2d 878

Blackston was convicted of first-degree murder in Van Buren County for Miller's death in 1988; retrial occurred after immunity issues regarding key witness Simpson.
Simpson testified at the first trial under a prosecutor-imposed immunity; Lamp pleaded guilty to manslaughter and testified for the state at trial.
At the second trial (2002), Simpson appeared but refused to testify; the court admitted his first-trial testimony and excluded a recanting written statement; Zantello’s testimony from the first trial was read due to unavailability.
Recanting statements by Simpson and Zantello were made after the first trial and before the second; Petitioner sought to impeach these recantations but was denied.
Petitioner alleged numerous trial and post-trial errors, including confrontation issues, unavailability rulings, ineffective assistance, double jeopardy, prosecutorial misconduct, and evidentiary exclusions; the district court granted relief on claims 1 and 2 and denied the rest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation clause and impeachment	Denial of impeachment with recantations violated confrontation.	State courts held error harmless given tainted/unavailable context and total evidence.	Granted relief on claims 1 and 2; denial of impeachment was not harmless.
Admissibility of prior testimony given witness unavailability	Reading former testimony without cross-examining recantations violated due process.	Unavailability and admissibility aligned with Crawford and related precedent.	No relief for this issue; admissibility sustained under framework.
Double jeopardy	Second trial violated double jeopardy because of earlier immunity misstatement.	Retry permitted when first conviction set aside for trial error; no intentional misconduct by state.	Merits rejected; no double jeopardy violation.
Prosecutorial misconduct	Prosecutor vouched for witnesses and urged the jury improperly.	Remarks were isolated and contextually permissible; not flagrant.	Claims rejected; no due process violation.
Ineffective assistance of counsel and evidentiary rulings	Counsel failed to object to hearsay and to impeach with prior statements; improper exclusion of witnesses.	Any omissions were not prejudicial and within strategic discretion.	Claims rejected; no ineffective assistance shown; state court reasonably applied Strickland.

Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (Confrontation and cross-examination as essential to credibility)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (Due process requires fair opportunity to present defense)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Testimonial evidence and availability for cross-examination)
Van Arsdall v. California, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Harmless-error factors for confrontation violations)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (Habeas corpus standard for harmless error)