472 F. App'x 348
6th Cir.2012Background
- Clark, a Michigan prisoner, was convicted of first-degree murder in 2003 and sentenced to life without parole.
- Beria Stewart, the only eyewitness, testified at preliminary examinations and identified Clark and co-defendant Harrington.
- At trial, Stewart was declared unavailable under Michigan Rule of Evidence 804(a)(3) and her preliminary-examination testimony was read to the jury; cross-examination was not allowed live.
- Post-trial, the trial court noted Stewart was intimidated and concluded Clark forfeited his Confrontation Clause rights, though this was not a formal waiver of the right.
- Clark appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial ruling; the Michigan Supreme Court denied an appeal as untimely.
- Clark then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief on Confrontation Clause grounds, which the district court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default of Confrontation claims | Clark defaulted both claims by filing an untimely Michigan Supreme Court request. | Default bars federal review unless cause and prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. | Both claims procedurally defaulted; no excusable cause or prejudice shown. |
| Ability to excuse default under cause or miscarriage | Appellate counsel's ineffectiveness could excuse default for the Crawford claim. | Untimely leave to appeal forecloses excuse; ineffective assistance not shown for timing issue. | No valid cause or miscarriage shown; default remains uncured. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion requires state-court presentation of claims)
- Maples v. Stegall, 340 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2003) (default if not properly presented to state supreme court)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (cause and prejudice required to excuse procedural default)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA review is highly deferential to state courts)
- Montgomery v. Bobby, 654 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2011) (AEDPA deference and standard of review for mixed questions)