Demetreus Keahey v. Dave Marquis, 978 F.3d 474

Background

Keahey was previously stabbed by Prince Hampton but did not identify him; later, despite a firearms prohibition, Keahey obtained a gun and arranged to meet Hampton’s family at Joyce’s home.
An encounter at Joyce’s home resulted in Keahey shooting Hampton; prosecution emphasized ambush/chase and multiple shots, defense claimed Keahey acted in self-defense after Hampton allegedly charged with a knife and later drew a gun.
Keahey requested a jury instruction on self-defense at trial; the Ohio trial court denied the instruction as unsupported by the evidence and the jury convicted him of attempted murder and related charges.
The Ohio courts (direct appeal and collateral review) rejected Keahey’s claims that the instruction was required by state law and the Constitution.
Keahey filed a § 2254 habeas petition; the district court denied relief and the Sixth Circuit granted a COA and affirmed, holding the state court’s refusal was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a self-defense instruction violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments	Keahey: denial deprived him of meaningful opportunity to present a defense	State: record lacked sufficient evidence under state law to warrant the instruction	Denial did not violate clearly established federal law under AEDPA; no entitlement to habeas relief
Whether the state court decision was “contrary to” Supreme Court precedent under AEDPA	Keahey: case law (e.g., Crane/Cupp) requires instruction or guarantees right to present defense	State: no Supreme Court decision squarely establishes a constitutional right to a jury self-defense instruction	Not contrary — no Supreme Court holding on point was misapplied
Whether the state court’s ruling was an “unreasonable application” of federal law	Keahey: application unreasonable given evidence supporting self-defense	State: AEDPA deference applies; governing Supreme Court rules are not specific, giving states leeway	Not an unreasonable application; range of reasonable judgment encompasses the state court’s conclusion
Whether Taylor v. Withrow or the COA binds this court (law-of-the-case)	Keahey: Taylor and COA establish entitlement and COA treated Taylor as binding	State: Taylor’s language is nonbinding dicta; COA does not decide merits or bind panel	Rejected—Taylor’s relevant language treated as dicta and COA does not create law-of-the-case binding effect

Key Cases Cited

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas does not redress pure state-law instructional errors)
Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 (1993) (rejecting expansive right to have jury consider every defense on federal habeas)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA standard: petitioner must show contrary or unreasonable application)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (limits on federal habeas relief under AEDPA)
Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (1973) (due-process relief for instructional errors only when trial is so infected as to violate fundamental fairness)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (defendant’s right to present a meaningful defense recognized but not squarely applied to self-defense instruction here)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009) (state courts need not apply circuit precedent not clearly established by Supreme Court)
Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. 312 (2015) (Supreme Court requires clearly established holdings, not general principles)
Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (entrapment instruction rule for federal common law; not a constitutional habeas holding)
Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37 (2012) (Sixth Circuit reliance on its own precedent insufficient to show clearly established Supreme Court law)
Glebe v. Frost, 574 U.S. 21 (2014) (circuit precedent cannot constitute clearly established federal law for AEDPA)
White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (2014) (emphasizing limits of habeas relief for state-court errors)
Marshall v. Rodgers, 569 U.S. 58 (2013) (must identify concrete Supreme Court holdings violated)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (state courts have leeway when governing rule lacks specificity)
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982) (errors of state law do not automatically become constitutional violations)
Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (discussing limits of fundamental fairness claims)
Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3 (2002) (definition of “contrary to” under AEDPA)