Manuel Sheard v. Paul Klee, 692 F. App'x 780

Manuel Sheard was convicted by a jury of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for repeatedly sexually assaulting his daughter between ages six and nine.
Medical testimony described a transected hymen and genital injuries consistent with repeated penetration; the victim gave detailed testimony; defense argued injuries resulted from a bicycle accident and that the child’s allegations were inconsistent/contrived.
At trial the prosecutor repeatedly introduced and argued Sheard’s extramarital affair (relationship with Sarah Hale) to attack his credibility and imply bad character; defense counsel largely failed to object.
Michigan Court of Appeals found the prosecutor’s remarks improper and counsel’s failure to object deficient, but held the misconduct harmless given the “overwhelming weight” of the evidence; Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
Sheard filed a federal habeas petition raising prosecutorial-misconduct and ineffective-assistance claims; the district court denied relief but granted a COA on the prosecutorial-misconduct and related ineffective-assistance claim.
Sixth Circuit AFFIRMED: it held the state court’s harmlessness determination was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under AEDPA and therefore denied habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct — improper character evidence	Prosecutor’s repeated appeals to Sheard’s affair impermissibly implied a propensity to lie and deprived Sheard of a fair trial	State argues claim was procedurally defaulted and, on the merits, the misconduct was harmless given the evidence	Court: misconduct was improper but state court’s harmlessness finding was reasonable under AEDPA (Brecht standard); no relief granted
Ineffective assistance for failing to object	Counsel’s failure to object to the affair evidence was constitutionally deficient and prejudiced the defense	State concedes deficiency but contends no prejudice because misconduct was harmless	Court: counsel deficient, but under Strickland + AEDPA the state court reasonably found no prejudice; claim denied
Procedural default	Sheard conceded default; argued ineffective-assistance excuse for cause	State invoked procedural default bar	Court: declined to resolve default separately because merits disposed the claim (no need to reach default)
Harmless-error standard on habeas	Sheard argued Darden and that prosecutor’s manipulation of evidence made error not harmless; emphasized credibility fight	State relied on medical and victim testimony as overwhelming proof making error harmless under Brecht/Chapman	Court: applied Brecht subsuming AEDPA; fairminded jurists could find state court’s harmlessness reasonable — no habeas relief

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (Brecht harmless-error standard governs habeas review)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA standards for federal habeas relief)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state-court decisions; "fairminded jurists" standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance test)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial misconduct and effect on fairness of trial)
Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (Brecht subsumes AEDPA/Chapman analysis)
Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (Brecht required on habeas when state court adjudicated claim)
Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (AEDPA’s objective unreasonableness standard)