Mark Jensen v. Marc Clements
800 F.3d 892
7th Cir.2015Background
- Julie Jensen wrote a sealed, handwritten letter two weeks before her death saying she would never commit suicide and that her husband Mark would be her first suspect; she also made similar oral statements to others and left voicemails for police.
- Julie was found dead; ethylene glycol (antifreeze) was in her system; initial autopsy was inconclusive and later medical testimony varied between poisoning and smothering theories; years later Mark Jensen was charged with first-degree homicide.
- Pretrial the trial court excluded the letter and police statements as testimonial under Crawford; the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, adopting a broad forfeiture-by-wrongdoing rule and remanded for a forfeiture hearing.
- After a forfeiture hearing the trial court found Jensen caused Julie’s absence and admitted the letter; at trial the State made the letter central (opening, multiple witnesses, experts, and rebuttal closing) and the jury convicted Jensen.
- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, after the Supreme Court decided Giles, assumed admission was erroneous but found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the federal district court granted habeas relief; the Seventh Circuit majority affirmed, concluding the state harmlessness determination unreasonably applied Supreme Court harmless-error law and the admission had a substantial and injurious effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Confrontation Clause | Letter and police statements were testimonial and inadmissible because Julie was unavailable and no prior cross-examination (Crawford/Giles) | State argued forfeiture by wrongdoing justified admission; trial court initially accepted forfeiture, later challenged by Giles | Admission violated the Confrontation Clause under Giles (testimonial and not within forfeiture as Giles requires intent to prevent testimony) |
| Which state decision is the relevant AEDPA "adjudication on the merits" | Jensen: the post-Giles Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision is the last merits adjudication so Giles applies | Warden: the pre-Giles trial court forfeiture ruling is the last merits adjudication, so Giles could not be applied by state court | Court held the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision was the last adjudication on the merits for AEDPA purposes (Ayala guidance) |
| Standard for habeas relief where state court found error harmless | Jensen: must show actual prejudice under Brecht and that state-court Chapman harmlessness ruling was an unreasonable application of clearly established law | Warden: state appellate court reasonably applied Chapman; no AEDPA relief | Court required Brecht (actual prejudice) but held petitioner met it because the appellate harmlessness decision unreasonably applied Chapman and left "grave doubt" as to harmlessness |
| Whether the erroneous admission was harmless/affected verdict | Jensen: the letter was unique, emphasized repeatedly, used in openings and closings, influenced experts, and was not merely cumulative — its admission had substantial/injurious effect | State: letter duplicated by abundant admissible evidence; any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Court held the admission was not harmless — it had substantial and injurious effect; state appellate court’s harmlessness ruling was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, so habeas granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements by unavailable witnesses require prior opportunity for cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applies only when defendant intended to prevent witness testimony)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (on direct appeal, a federal constitutional error is harmless only if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas relief for trial error requires showing actual prejudice — substantial and injurious effect on the verdict)
- Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015) (when a state court finds error harmless under Chapman, a habeas petitioner still must meet Brecht; AEDPA requires deference unless the state harmlessness determination itself was unreasonable)