Matthew Fletcher v. J. Soto
693 F. App'x 724
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Matthew and Jennifer Fletcher were jointly convicted of murdering Jennifer’s ex-husband, Joel Shanbrom; direct appeals and state habeas failed.
- Both filed separate 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions in federal district court; the district court denied relief and the Fletchers appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit granted certificates of appealability (COAs) narrowly: for Matthew, whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by asking Detective McCartin whether he believed the Fletchers’ story; for Jennifer, whether her § 2254 petition included that same claim and whether she was entitled to relief.
- The challenged trial exchange occurred during redirect of Detective McCartin after Matthew’s pro se cross-examination; the detective testified he and others perceived Matthew as a “con man.”
- The Fletchers also sought expansion of their COAs to include exclusion of third-party culpability evidence and failure to instruct on it; a concurrence argued that exclusion likely violated Holmes v. South Carolina.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct for asking detective if he believed the Fletchers’ story | Prosecutor’s question improperly solicited witness’s view of defendants’ veracity and unfairly prejudiced them | Question was responsive after Matthew opened the door during pro se cross-examination | No constitutional violation; questioning was fair rebuttal after the defense opened the door; habeas relief denied |
| Whether Jennifer’s § 2254 petition included the misconduct claim | Jennifer contends her petition raised the misconduct claim and merits relief | State argues claim was not properly before the court or lacks merit | Court treated scope issue as certified only insofar as COA allowed; rejected misconduct claim on merits |
| Expansion of COA to include exclusion of third-party culpability evidence | Fletchers argued the trial court wrongly excluded central third-party guilt evidence (Donald Moffett) that corroborated their defense | State argued exclusion was proper under California evidentiary rules and harmless | COA expansion denied; majority held petitioners failed to show substantial showing of constitutional denial |
| Whether exclusion of third-party evidence violated Holmes/was structural or unreasonable on state-court review | Fletchers (and concurrence) argued exclusion prevented presentation of critical defense and unreasonably applied Holmes and Crane | State maintained exclusion was based on probative value under California law, not Holmes-type categorical bar | Majority denied relief and COA expansion; concurrence (Reinhardt) believed exclusion likely meritorious and that Holmes applied, but did not expand COA |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518 (procedural-bar issues need not always be resolved first)
- Visciotti v. Martel, 839 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for § 2254 denial)
- Sexton v. Cozner, 679 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.) (AEDPA deference principles)
- Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852 (9th Cir.) (de novo review where state court did not decide an issue)
- Reynoso v. Giurbino, 462 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir.) (same)
- Sassounian v. Roe, 230 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir.) (prosecutorial-misconduct habeas standard)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial-misconduct due-process standard)
- United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 160 F.3d 511 (9th Cir.) (rule that prosecutor may respond when defendant opens the door)
- Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir.) (standard for expanding COA; substantial showing requirement)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (Sup. Ct.) (right to present third-party guilt evidence unless only very weak connection)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (exclusion of critical defense evidence can violate the right to present a complete defense)