Background

• Corby was convicted in New York for second-degree murder and first-degree robbery based on Burnett’s testimony as the principal witness.
• Burnett testified that Corby’s associates murdered Mohammed in Burnett’s apartment; Burnett helped dispose of the body and faced threats from Corby.
• Corby’s defense sought to cross-examine Burnett about what Bourges told her and whether Corby had accused Burnett, to show retaliation bias.
• The trial court ruled the sought cross-examination improper, limiting inquiry to what Bourges had said without detailing the substance of Corby’s alleged accusation.
• New York Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, holding any further cross-examination would be cumulative and prejudicial.
• Corby petitioned for habeas corpus; the district court granted relief, but the Second Circuit reversed, finding no Confrontation Clause violation.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (limits on cross-examination to show bias while balancing probative value)
• Brinson v. Walker, 547 F.3d 387 (2d Cir. 2008) (cross-examination to show witness bias under Confrontation Clause)
• Delancer v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (opportunity for cross-examination, not any desired extent)
• Mason v. Scully, 16 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1994) (Bruton principle applied to implied accusations via witnesses)
• Ryan v. Miller, 303 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2002) (implied content of statements matters for confrontation analysis)
• Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (incriminating statements of non-testifying co-defendants excluded)
• Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error standard for constitutional violations on direct appeal)
• Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) (harmless-error standard on federal habeas review)