Charles Dorsey v. William Stephens, Director
720 F.3d 309
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Dorsey, a Texas prisoner, challenged a murder conviction via 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after state proceedings.
- Evidence included a videotaped interview of the couple's child, C.D., during a police interview about the shooting.
- The tape showed C.D. failing to fire in double action mode; trial evidence also described single-action firing capabilities.
- Dorsey argued the videotape violated the Confrontation Clause; the trial court partially suppressed the audio portion.
- Texas courts adjudicated Dorsey’s direct appeal and post-conviction filings; a PDR on the Confrontation Clause issue was denied on the merits.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding any Confrontation Clause error was not prejudice and appellate counsel’s performance was not deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause applicability to the video | Dorsey | Dorsey | No clear AEDPA error; fairminded disagreement possible |
| Prejudice from Confrontation Clause error | Dorsey | State | No substantial or injurious effect on verdict |
| Ineffective assistance on direct/intermediate appeal | Dorsey | State | Counsel's performance not proven deficient or prejudicial under Strickland |
| Retroactivity of Crawford for collateral review | Dorsey | State | Crawford applies to cases pending direct review; here, final judgment occurred after Crawford |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause limits)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2011) (authentication of reports; testimonial concerns)
- Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1990) (non-testimonial aspects of speech; Fifth Amendment discussion cited)
- Parker v. Matthews, 132 S. Ct. 2148 (S. Ct. 2012) (reasonableness of state court decision; AEDPA framework referenced)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (unreasonable application standard under AEDPA)
- Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (S. Ct. 2011) (AEDPA deference and limits on evidentiary review)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (scope of appellate counsel's responsibilities and nonfrivolous claims)
- Styron v. Johnson, 262 F.3d 438 (5th Cir. 2001) (ineffective assistance standard considerations in habeas context)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (retroactivity and rule application in collateral review)
- Ybanez v. Johnson, 204 F.3d 645 (5th Cir. 2000) (out-of-time appeals and disposition on the merits)