Larry Stewart v. Tony Trierweiler, 867 F.3d 633

Background

December 19, 2011: Kevin Brown was shot and killed after arriving at an apartment where Reynatta Hamilton had arranged a meeting; Hamilton and Larry Stewart were charged in a joint trial for felony murder, armed robbery, felon-in-possession, and conspiracy.
Evidence: eyewitness testimony placed Stewart at the apartment, showed he brandished a gun and planned a robbery, and linked Stewart and Hamilton by heavy phone contact in the minutes before the shooting; Hamilton told police “it wasn’t supposed to go down like this.”
At trial the court admitted some of Hamilton’s out-of-court statements to police but excluded others; the jury convicted Stewart on all counts and sentenced him to life plus additional terms.
On direct appeal the Michigan Court of Appeals found some admitted Hamilton statements violated the Confrontation Clause but deemed those errors harmless given the other evidence; the Michigan Supreme Court denied review.
Stewart filed a federal habeas petition raising (inter alia) Confrontation Clause and prosecutorial-misconduct claims; the district court granted relief on those claims but the Sixth Circuit reversed, applying AEDPA deference to the state-court rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause: admission of Hamilton’s statements against Stewart	Hamilton’s statements were testimonial/Bruton-type and their admission violated Stewart’s Sixth Amendment right and prejudiced the jury	State court: some statements were erroneous to admit but were cumulative and any error was harmless given strong admissible evidence	State court reasonably applied federal law; errors, if any, were harmless under Chapman/Brecht and AEDPA deference upheld reversal of district court
Prosecutorial misconduct during cross-exam and closing	Prosecutor vouched, attacked defense counsel, commented on redacted statements and used inflammatory rhetoric that denied due process	State court: isolated comments; curative instructions, context, and reciprocal argument by defense counsel cured any prejudice	State court reasonably concluded no due process violation under Darden; AEDPA bars relief
Applicability of AEDPA deference when state court used plain-error review	Stewart: plain-error treatment means no AEDPA deference	State: state court provided reasoned federal-law analysis so AEDPA applies	Fleming and Supreme Court precedent presume merits adjudication; AEDPA deference applies
Use of jury question about Hamilton’s statements as evidence of prejudice	Stewart: jury query shows statements were critical, not cumulative	State: jury asked about form of statements; trial judge and parties treated it as request for a written copy; speculative to infer prejudice	Court rejects relying on the jury question; it does not demonstrate outcome-determinative prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay/Confrontation Clause framework)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (admission of co-defendant statements against a defendant)
Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12 (AEDPA deference to state-court adjudication when claim fully adjudicated)
Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (harmless-error analysis under AEDPA)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (habeas harmless-error standard)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (direct-review harmless-error standard)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (factors for assessing confrontation error prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (presumption that state court adjudicated claims on merits for AEDPA)
Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 (example of harmless Confrontation Clause error where evidence was overwhelming)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (due process standard for prosecutorial misconduct)
United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (contextual review of prosecutorial argument)
Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37 (limits on relying on circuit precedent to define clearly established law under AEDPA)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (prosecution’s use of post-Miranda silence)