Clark v. Campbell, 4:15-cv-12578

Andrew Clark was convicted by a Michigan jury of first‑degree murder (merged verdicts of premeditated and felony murder), unlawful driving, arson, and larceny; sentenced to life for murder.
Victim Robert Miller was found stabbed over 100 times in his condominium; Miller’s car was later found burning; victim’s computer equipment was in the burned car’s trunk.
Investigators tied Clark to the scene with DNA, handwriting analysis of a note reading “The Killer,” a matching earring, pawnshop records showing Clark pawned Miller’s rings, phone records placing Clark with Miller that night, and recorded jailhouse statements by Clark admitting involvement.
Clark asserted self‑defense to police; at trial the prosecution argued robbery and planned targeting of men via an internet dating site.
Clark appealed and raised suppression and prosecutorial‑misconduct claims; Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. He later filed a state post‑conviction motion denied under MCR 6.508(D). He then filed this federal habeas petition raising ineffective assistance (trial & appellate), prosecutorial misconduct, and procedural‑default-related claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Clark)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Counsel failed to rebut felony‑murder theory (show theft was post‑murder) and should have called brother to explain recorded statements	Evidence supported both premeditated and felony murder; any counsel error would only affect felony‑murder theory; overwhelming evidence of guilt	Denied — no Strickland prejudice; verdict supported by premeditated‑murder theory and strong evidence
Prosecutorial misconduct during closing	Prosecutor argued facts not in evidence (targeting homosexual men, immediate overpowering, gun, binding/torture)	Arguments were reasonable inferences from evidence (dating‑site contacts, victim wearing shoes, detective testimony about chair and blood, prosecutor qualified gun remark)	Denied — Darden standard met; state court reasonably concluded comments did not deny due process
Procedural default and exhaustion	Clark contends appellate counsel ineffectiveness and MCR 6.508(D) excuses default	State courts denied relief under Rule 6.508(D); federal court may bypass default and address merits	Court addressed merits directly (efficiency) and found claims meritless; procedural default not reached
Certificate of appealability / IFP on appeal	Clark seeks COA to appeal denial	Court: claims lack substantial showing of constitutional denial; appeal not in good faith	Denied COA and leave to proceed IFP

Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2009) (state‑court factual findings presumed correct on habeas review)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standard: "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" of clearly established federal law)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (highly deferential AEDPA review; state decisions must be beyond fairminded disagreement)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial comments violate due process only if they "infect the trial with unfairness")
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (limitations on prosecutorial argument that injects prejudice)
Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12 (2003) (definition of "contrary to" Supreme Court precedent)
Parker v. Matthews, 132 S. Ct. 2148 (2012) (clarifies Darden/AEDPA interaction)