Junior Blackston v. Lloyd Rapelje
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2382
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Junior Fred Blackston was retried and convicted of first-degree murder based largely on testimony from accomplices Charles Lamp and Guy Simpson and witnesses Darlene Zantello, Rebecca Mock, and Roxann Barr; no physical evidence tied Blackston to the killing.
- After the first conviction was set aside, Simpson and Zantello executed written recantations before the second trial, asserting their earlier trial testimony against Blackston was false and explaining motives for lying (prosecutorial pressure, immunity/charge dismissal, threats).
- At the second trial Simpson and Zantello were declared unavailable after bizarre, nonresponsive conduct; the court admitted their first-trial testimony by reading it to the jury but excluded the recantations from being presented or read as impeachment evidence.
- Michigan courts split on whether exclusion of the recantations violated state evidentiary rules and the Confrontation Clause; the Michigan Supreme Court ultimately held exclusion was permissible and that any error was harmless based on other evidence.
- Blackston filed for federal habeas relief alleging Sixth Amendment confrontation and Fourteenth Amendment due process violations; the district court granted a conditional writ and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Confrontation Clause guaranteed right to impeach witnesses with their recantations when their prior testimony was read due to unavailability | Blackston: exclusion denied meaningful opportunity to expose witnesses’ motives and inconsistent statements; recantations were prototypical impeachment material | State: recantations were extrinsic evidence or unduly prejudicial, cumulative of prior impeachment, and properly excluded under evidentiary rules; Jackson limits right to admit extrinsic impeachment | Held for Blackston: clearly established law protects impeachment with a witness’s own inconsistent statements; exclusion was unreasonable application of that law |
| Whether Rule 403-type prejudice or concerns about prosecutorial integrity justify exclusion under Confrontation Clause | Blackston: Rule 403 concerns cannot override constitutional right to confront and impeachment could be redacted if needed | State: recantations amounted to advocacy for acquittal, implicated prosecutorial misconduct, and risked unfair prejudice; judge’s credibility concerns justified exclusion | Held: state justification objectively unreasonable; potential prejudice did not permit denying confrontation; redaction or cross-examination could address concerns |
| Whether witnesses’ manipulation/unavailability and alleged fraud-on-the-court forfeited confrontation rights | Blackston: forfeiture applies only when defendant wrongfully procures unavailability; third-party manipulation doesn’t forfeit his right | State: witnesses contrived unavailability and sought to manipulate the process, so exclusion protected judicial integrity | Held: forfeiture-by-wrongdoing unavailable because Blackston did not cause unavailability; state’s argument rejected |
| Whether the Confrontation error was harmless under Brecht/Kotteakos | Blackston: error was not harmless because Simpson and Zantello were central to prosecution; remaining evidence was weak | State: recantations largely cumulative; significant untainted evidence made any error harmless | Held: error not harmless — witnesses were critical and untainted evidence was weak; violation had substantial and injurious effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (Confrontation Clause protects right to cross-examine witness to expose bias)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (limits on cross-examination must not defeat exposure of prototypical bias)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial out-of-court statements admissible only if declarant unavailable and prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (impeachment of state witness with truthfulness issues is constitutionally material; absence may taint verdict)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas relief requires showing of substantial and injurious effect under harmless-error standard)
- Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895) (common-law evidentiary rule on foundation for inconsistent statements; discussed and distinguished)
- Nevada v. Jackson, 133 S. Ct. 1990 (2013) (refusal to admit certain extrinsic impeachment evidence under state rules did not clearly establish Confrontation Clause violation in that case)
- Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988) (Confrontation Clause protects probing into relationships or motives that bear on credibility)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (importance of corroboration and effect of a harmful confession on overall case strength)