577 U.S. 1019
SCOTUS2015Background
- Junior Fred Blackston was convicted of first-degree murder; the trial relied on five witnesses. A new trial was ordered; at retrial two witnesses recanted written statements but refused to testify.
- Trial court declared those two witnesses "unavailable," admitted their prior trial testimony under a hearsay exception, and excluded the written recantations.
- Blackston was convicted again; Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, finding any exclusion harmless or not erroneous under state law.
- Blackston filed a federal habeas petition; the district court conditionally granted relief, finding a Sixth/Fourteenth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation.
- A divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed, holding there is a "clearly established" right to impeach an adverse witness using the witness's own inconsistent statements, making exclusion unconstitutional under AEDPA.
- The Supreme Court denied certiorari; Justice Scalia (joined by Justices Thomas and Alito) dissented from denial, arguing the Sixth Circuit misapplied AEDPA and no Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes a right to admit out-of-court recantations of unavailable witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Confrontation Clause guarantees admission of prior inconsistent out-of-court statements of unavailable witnesses | Blackston: exclusion violated his right to confront and impeach adverse witnesses using their inconsistent statements | State: Confrontation does not guarantee admission of extrinsic out-of-court statements of unavailable declarants; state evidentiary rules govern admissibility | Denial of certiorari (Scalia dissent): Sixth Circuit wrongly found a "clearly established" Supreme Court right; Supreme Court has not established such a constitutional right, so AEDPA relief was improper |
| Whether the Sixth Circuit identified "clearly established" federal law under AEDPA | Blackston: existing cases establish right to impeach with inconsistent statements broadly | State: Supreme Court precedent has not clearly established that right for unavailable declarants; prior cases concern live cross-examination | Held: No Supreme Court case clearly establishes admissibility of such extrinsic evidence for unavailable witnesses; Sixth Circuit overextended precedent |
| Whether prior testimony admission but exclusion of recantations violated confrontation rights | Blackston: exclusion prevented impeachment and deprived confrontation | State: Admission of prior testimony satisfied confrontation; exclusion of recantations was a state-evidence ruling | Held: Not clearly established by Supreme Court precedent that exclusion was constitutional violation under AEDPA |
| Whether AEDPA allows federal courts to extend Supreme Court precedent to new contexts | Blackston: AEDPA should allow application where principle is clear | State: AEDPA prohibits treating extensions as "clearly established" law | Held: AEDPA does not require state courts to extend precedent; federal habeas relief requires an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (recognition that Confrontation Clause limits admission of certain out-of-court statements)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (Confrontation Clause protects right to cross-examine testifying witnesses for impeachment)
- Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (earlier suggestion that Confrontation Clause does not guarantee admission of all out-of-court statements)
- Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (cross-examination rights in the confrontation context involve testifying witnesses)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (scope of cross-examination and confrontation protections)
- Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 (historic confrontation principles concerning live testimony)