Eric Anderson v. Clark Ducart
708 F. App'x 905
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Eric Anderson was convicted of murder; on appeal he challenged the prosecutor’s use of leading questions to a witness who refused to answer and references to those questions in closing argument.
- The contested questions concerned statements allegedly made by Anderson’s codefendant about the murder.
- Anderson raised Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims in a federal habeas petition.
- The state appellate court found the prosecutor’s leading questions inappropriate but held any error was cured by repeated jury instructions that attorneys’ questions and arguments are not evidence.
- The state courts also concluded there was substantial other evidence of guilt (eyewitness ID, surveillance of Anderson driving the getaway vehicle shortly before the murder, physical evidence, and multiple alleged confessions to third parties).
- The district court denied habeas relief; the Ninth Circuit affirmed under AEDPA, finding no unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and that any error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s leading questions and referencing them in closing violated the Confrontation Clause and due process | Anderson: prosecutor’s conduct introduced inadmissible out-of-court statements and prejudiced the jury | State: trial judge’s instructions cured any error; jurors are presumed to follow instructions | Court: No unreasonable application of federal law; instructions cured error and any error was harmless |
| Whether state court decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent under AEDPA | Anderson: Supreme Court precedent requires reversal where confrontation rights are infringed | State: AEDPA requires deference; petitioner must show objectively unreasonable application | Court: AEDPA standard not met; petitioner failed to identify controlling Supreme Court decision requiring relief |
| Whether the prosecutorial error — if any — had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict | Anderson: error influenced jury verdict | State: overwhelming other evidence supports verdict; no actual prejudice | Court: Given weight of other evidence, any error was harmless under Brecht standard |
| Whether Bruton-type prejudice to co-defendant jury instructions applies | Anderson: jury could not ignore incriminating statements tied to codefendant | State: Bruton not implicated because jurors were instructed and evidence was not uniquely prejudicial | Court: Bruton not applicable; instructions and case facts distinguish this situation |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. Donald, 135 S. Ct. 1372 (2015) (explains AEDPA’s deferential standard for federal habeas review)
- Wetzel v. Lambert, 565 U.S. 520 (2012) (requires examining each ground supporting state-court decision under AEDPA)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (due process review of prosecutorial misconduct requires showing trial was so infected with unfairness as to deny due process)
- Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37 (2012) (emphasizes Darden’s general standard and limited scope for federal habeas reversal)
- Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409 (1985) (presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions applies to Confrontation Clause issues)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (addresses prejudice when confessions implicating co-defendants are introduced)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless-error standard for federal habeas review requires showing substantial and injurious effect on verdict)