Likely v. Ruane
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8444
1st Cir.2011Background
- Likely was convicted in Massachusetts in 2002 for distributing cocaine and evidence included a chemical certificate of analysis without live testimony from a chemist.
- On appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court rejected Likely's federal Confrontation Clause argument; the issue was adjudicated on the merits in state court.
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) later clarified that such certificates are testimonial, potentially implicating confrontation rights, but this decision occurred after Likely’s state-court finality date.
- Likely filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 2006; the district court denied relief, and the state court decision was reviewed under AEDPA.
- The AEDPA standard at § 2254(d) requires reversal only if the state-court decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as of the time of the state decision.
- The First Circuit ultimately held that there was no clearly established Supreme Court law at the relevant time addressing whether admission of the chemist's certificate without the chemist as a witness violated the Confrontation Clause, so the state court's decision could not be deemed contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of a chemist's certificate without testimony violated the Confrontation Clause | Likely argued Crawford created clear rules against non-testimonial evidence | Ruane argued no clearly established federal law at the time | Petition denied; no clearly established federal law at the time supporting relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (bars relitigation of merits determinations in state court)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (clarifies 'clearly established Federal law' refers to holdings)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (affirmed time-of-decision focus for § 2254(d)(1))
- Foxworth v. St. Amand, 570 F.3d 414 (1st Cir. 2009) (uncertainty when clearly established law is unsettled)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009) (held certificates are testimonial and subject to confrontation)
- Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120 (2008) (no clear answer when precedent is unsettled)
- Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006) (lack of controlling holdings on the issue)
- Briscoe v. Virginia, 130 S. Ct. 1316 (2010) (reaffirmed Melendez-Diaz reasoning)
- L'Abbe v. DiPaolo, 311 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 2002) (illustrates framing of 'clearly established' standards in this circuit)