Gagne v. Booker
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9823
6th Cir.2012Background
- In 2000, Lewis Gagne and Swathwood were charged in Michigan state court with first-degree criminal sexual misconduct based on an alleged non-consensual three-way encounter with P.C.; Gagne was convicted on two counts and Swathwood on all counts, with Gagne sentenced to 22.5 to 45 years.
- Before trial, Gagne sought to admit evidence about P.C.'s past sexual conduct with him and with Bermudez and an offer to engage in group sex with Gagne's father, under Michigan's rape-shield statute § 750.520j(1).
- The trial court admitted the Tony's Lounge Incident (a threesome involving P.C., Gagne, Swathwood) and the use of sex toys, while excluding the Bermudez and father-invitation items; another item about Stout was admitted with limits, and the rest were barred as not fitting § 750.520j(1).
- On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting arguments that exclusion violated Gagne's constitutional rights and balancing the rape-shield statute against confrontation interests.
- Gagne petitioned for federal habeas corpus; the district court granted relief, but the Sixth Circuit granted en banc review and reversed the district court, holding the Michigan court did not unreasonably apply federal law under AEDPA.
- Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit denied the petition, concluding the state court's balancing under Lucas and Crane was reasonable and that the exclusion did not violate Gagne's due process or confrontation rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bermudez and Gagne Sr. evidence was admissible under rape shield and consistent with Sixth Amendment rights | Gagne contends exclusion violated confrontation/complete-defense rights. | Booker argues rape shield and trial interests justify exclusion; no constitutional violation. | No reversible error; state court reasonably weighed interests. |
| Whether Lucas and Crane require admission of the excluded evidence on a case-by-case balance | Gagne says balance favors admission due to central defense. | State argues statutory interests outweigh defense in most cases. | State court did not unreasonably apply Lucas/Crane; exclusion permissible. |
| Whether Chambers/Olden require relief because exclusion denied a meaningful defense in a credibility contest | Gagne asserts exclusion deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense (Chambers/Olden parallels). | State maintains the balance was proper and not contrary to Chambers/Olden. | Not contrary; AEDPA deference maintained; no due-process violation under Chambers/Olden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (right to confrontation may bow to trial-process interests)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (meaningful opportunity to present complete defense; indispensable evidence)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (useful framing for evaluating exclusion in credibility contests)
- Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988) (cohabitation evidence and cross-examination in rape cases)
- Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) (rape-shield evidence requires case-by-case balancing; Sixth Amendment implications)
- Michigan v. Arenda, 416 Mich. 1 (1982) (rape-shield provisions generally exclude victim's past conduct; exceptions contemplated)
- Michigan v. Hackett, 421 Mich. 338 (1984) (discusses constitutionality of rape-shield exclusions and extraordinary circumstances)
- Michigan v. Adair, 452 Mich. 473 (1996) (rape-shield balancing; admissibility where probative value outweighs prejudice)