Peak v. Webb
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5358
6th Cir.2012Background
- Peak was convicted of intentional murder, first-degree robbery, conspiracy, and tampering with evidence in Kentucky court.
- Meeks and Bearden were Peak's co-defendants; Meeks gave an unsworn taped confession implicating Peak.
- Bearden testified; her credibility was repeatedly impeached; no physical evidence tied Peak to the crime.
- The state admitted Meeks's redacted/unredacted taped confession; Meeks waived Fifth Amendment rights but did not testify.
- Trial court allowed the unredacted confession to be played without calling Meeks as a live witness.
- Kentucky Supreme Court plurality held no Confrontation Clause violation; dissents urged reversal; Peak sought federal habeas relief under AEDPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Meeks's testimonial tape violated the Confrontation Clause | Peak: coercive, testimonial statement admitted without live cross-exam. | Commonwealth: availability to call Meeks suffices under Crawford. | Habeas relief denied; majority yes, but issue framed for appeal. |
| Whether AEDPA deference bars relief given state court disagreement | Peak: state court unreasonably applied Crawford; unambiguous error. | Respondent: fairminded disagreement precludes relief under Harrington. | Affirmed denial of habeas petition; state court reasonable under AEDPA. |
| What level of confrontation is required: immediate cross-examination or mere availability | Peak: must have immediate cross-examination; unavailable otherwise. | Commonwealth: availability to call suffices; cross-examination may be deferred. | Open question; Court held fairminded disagreement possible; no relief under AEDPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial evidence requires unavailability and prior cross-examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (limits on cross-examination in testimonial statements)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (non-testifying co-defendant’s statement implicating defendant violates confrontation)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (prosecution cannot use ex parte affidavits; witness must be subpoenaed if available)
- Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (U.S. 1999) (concerns about accomplice testimony and lack of cross-examination)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (confrontation rights regulate prosecution conduct and witness presentation)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (AEDPA deference and unreasonable application standard for state-court decisions)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) (clarifies deference standard under AEDPA; 'fairminded jurists' standard underlying decision)