Hayes Bacall v. Cathleen Stoddard, 16-2668

Hayes Bacall was convicted in Michigan of first-degree, premeditated murder after shooting his nephew, Saif Jameel; Bacall asserted self-defense at trial.
Facts were disputed and equivocal: no camera in the office, conflicting/inconsistent witness testimony, inconclusive forensic evidence, and evidence Bacall both feared Jameel and had brought a gun.
After the shooting Bacall told an officer, “I shot my nephew, he owes me $400,000,” and made other statements; while in jail he made recorded calls asserting self-defense.
At trial the prosecutor, in rebuttal, falsely told the jury that Bacall first raised self-defense only at trial (despite the jail calls) and also referenced inadmissible concealed‑carry permit information; defense objections were overruled and no curative instruction or mistrial was given.
The Michigan Court of Appeals found the prosecutor’s “first‑time” remark improper but upheld the conviction as not fundamentally unfair; Michigan Supreme Court denied review; Bacall sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The Sixth Circuit applied AEDPA deference and denied the habeas petition, concluding the state court’s application of Supreme Court precedents was not objectively unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury note indicating possible unanimity on a lesser charge triggered double‑jeopardy	Bacall: note showed jury had agreed on lesser offense, invoking double‑jeopardy	State: note was a question, not a verdict; no final decision reached	Held: No double‑jeopardy violation; state court reasonably concluded no verdict returned
Whether brief public deliberation (jury viewing gun in courtroom) was reversible error	Bacall: public discussion and viewing of gun outside jury room prejudiced deliberations	State: any error was waived/harmless; trial procedures and jury instruction cured risk	Held: AEDPA forecloses relief; no Supreme Court authority makes brief public deliberation structural error
Whether prosecutor’s false rebuttal (saying self‑defense was raised first at trial) and other improper remarks violated due process	Bacall: prosecutor knowingly lied about the jail calls and referenced inadmissible permit info, infecting the trial and warranting a new trial	State: misstatements were improper but not so prejudicial—considering context, instructions, and evidence, they did not deny due process	Held: Denied relief under Darden/AEDPA—misconduct was improper but not objectively unreasonable to conclude it did not deprive Bacall of a fair trial

Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (governs due‑process review of prosecutorial argument; requires assessing whether misconduct so infected trial as to deny a fair trial)
Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967) (prosecution’s deliberate misrepresentation of crucial physical evidence requires reversal)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (persistent and pronounced prosecutorial misconduct in context of weak case warrants new trial)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (isolated improper comments differ from consistent misrepresentations that may require reversal)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for plain‑error review of trial errors)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deferential standard: state‑court rulings must be objectively unreasonable to grant habeas relief)
Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37 (2012) (courts must not expand Supreme Court precedent when applying AEDPA; cannot rely on circuit‑level reinterpretations)