Childers v. Floyd
625 F.3d 1319
11th Cir.2011Background
- Childers was an Escambia County commissioner implicated in a kickback scheme involving Joe Elliot and witness Willie Junior.
- Junior pleaded nolo contendere to multiple charges and testified for the State under a plea agreement with immunity.
- The State later sought to revoke Junior’s plea based on new, allegedly false statements discovered in January 2003.
- Elliot was tried and acquitted, and the State sought to introduce that acquittal to impeach Junior.
- The State filed a Notice of Revocation and a March 13 ruling; Childers moved to introduce these materials to show Junior’s motive to lie.
- Childers was tried and convicted on one bribery and one unlawful‑conduct count; money‑laundering count was acquitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Florida appellate ruling on Rule 403 constitutes an adjudication on the merits for AEDPA. | Childers argues the Florida court adjudicated the Confrontation Clause claim on the merits. | State contends the court decided under Florida Rule 403 and did not adjudicate the federal claim. | No; the Florida court did adjudicate the Confrontation Clause claim on the merits for AEDPA purposes. |
| Whether excluding the Elliot acquittal and the Notice of Revocation violated the Confrontation Clause. | Childers contends the cross-examination restriction prevented exposing Junior’s motive to lie. | State argues the evidence would be irrelevant or prejudicial and within limits of cross-examined discretion. | Exclusion did not violate the Confrontation Clause under AEDPA deference. |
| If reviewed de novo, did the state court’s ruling violate clearly established federal law on cross‑examination? | Childers maintains a de novo standard would show a violation under Van Arsdall and Davis. | State argues Florida court reasonably limited cross-examination to protect against prejudice. | State court’s ruling was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. Supreme Court 1974) (impeachment of witness bias and motives through cross-examination)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (limits on cross-examination to reveal bias; ‘significantly different impression’ test)
- Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (limits on cross-examination to reveal bias; cannot bar all inquiry)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (AEDPA deferential review; Richter presumption of merits adjudication)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (presence of state court written decisions affecting merits review)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (discussed in context of deference when merits not clearly adjudicated)
- Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (premise of deference when state court addresses same claim without federal law)