Reed v. Cline
17-3173
| 10th Cir. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Samuel L. Reed was convicted by a Kansas jury in 2011 of attempted first-degree murder; state appellate review and the U.S. Supreme Court denial of certiorari affirmed the conviction.
- Reed filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in federal district court (October 2016) which was denied; he sought a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal that denial.
- Central trial events: victim Amos Becknell refused to testify at trial; the trial judge privately questioned Becknell in a nearly-empty courtroom, found him unavailable, and the prosecution read Becknell’s preliminary-hearing testimony into evidence.
- Reed raised several claims in federal habeas, primarily ineffective assistance of trial counsel for: (1) not objecting to the courtroom closure when Becknell was questioned, (2) not objecting to the judge’s finding Becknell unavailable, (3) not objecting to admission of Becknell’s preliminary-hearing transcript (confrontation clause), and (4) failing to object to alleged prosecutorial vouching of witness Michael Price.
- The Kansas Supreme Court rejected Reed’s claims on the merits; the federal district court denied relief under AEDPA; the Tenth Circuit panel denied a COA and dismissed the appeal, concluding no reasonable jurist could debate the district court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Closure of courtroom during judge’s questioning of Becknell violated Sixth Amendment public-trial right | Reed: private questioning/emptying courtroom denied public trial | State: the judge’s limited inquiry into witness availability was not a public-trial proceeding implicating Sixth Amendment access | Denied COA—no Supreme Court precedent shows such limited, closed questioning breaches public-trial right |
| Trial court’s finding Becknell unavailable was erroneous | Reed: judge erred by not compelling Becknell to testify | State: judge did not abuse discretion in finding Becknell unavailable | Denied COA—state-court ruling reasonable and Reed cites no controlling Supreme Court authority to the contrary |
| Counsel ineffective for not objecting to Becknell’s unavailability finding | Reed: counsel should have objected | State: no prejudice because unavailability finding was proper; counsel not deficient | Denied COA—no reasonable jurist could debate that counsel was not ineffective under Strickland |
| Counsel ineffective for not objecting to admission of Becknell’s preliminary-hearing testimony (Confrontation Clause) | Reed: admission waived confrontation rights | State: admission did not violate Confrontation Clause; thus no prejudice from counsel’s failure to object | Denied COA—state court reasonably concluded no confrontation violation and no Strickland prejudice |
| Prosecutorial vouching for Michael Price; counsel failed to object | Reed: prosecutor vouched for Price’s truthfulness via plea-agreement questioning | State: questioning about plea-agreement terms is proper; counsel’s failure to object was not deficient | Denied COA—state-court conclusion reasonable and unsupported by Supreme Court authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for issuing certificate of appealability)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel two-prong test)
- Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (First Amendment right of access to certain criminal proceedings)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (standard for closing criminal proceedings to the public)
- Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (due-process concerns from secretive or intrusive trial procedures)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (due-process right to public proceedings and grand jury secrecy concerns)
- Gipson v. Jordan, 376 F.3d 1193 (AEDPA "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" explanation)
- Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935 (AEDPA’s deferential standard applies to COA consideration)