Sharee Miller v. Clarice Stovall
742 F.3d 642
6th Cir.2014Background
- Sharee Miller was convicted in Michigan of second-degree murder and conspiracy for plotting with Jerry Cassaday to kill her husband; evidence included emails/IMs and materials found in a briefcase after Cassaday’s suicide.
- After Cassaday’s suicide, his brother found a briefcase containing copies of electronic communications and four notes; one suicide note to his parents implicated Miller and was admitted at trial.
- Miller challenged admission of Cassaday’s suicide note as violating her Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right because she could not cross-examine Cassaday.
- Miller’s state-court appeal was decided under Ohio v. Roberts (reliability indicia standard); Crawford v. Washington later changed Confrontation Clause law but was decided after the state courts’ merits rulings.
- On habeas review, federal courts applied AEDPA deference and, after the Supreme Court’s Greene v. Fisher guidance on the relevant time for “clearly established law,” the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether Michigan’s adjudication unreasonably applied Roberts.
- The Sixth Circuit held the Michigan Court of Appeals reasonably applied the Roberts framework and affirmed denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state court relied impermissibly on "consistency" by using corroboration of the note against Miller | Michigan Court of Appeals used the note’s consistency with other evidence to find reliability, which is forbidden under Idaho v. Wright | The court only cited the note’s internal consistency (not corroboration by trial evidence), which is permissible | Held for State: no contravention of clearly established law (Roberts) due to internal-consistency reading |
| Whether the state court unreasonably applied Roberts by weighing improper or weak reliability factors (spontaneity, contemporaneity, personal knowledge, motive) | Factors cited (spontaneity, consistency, contemporaneousness, personal knowledge) do not establish particularized guarantees of trustworthiness; Cassaday may have motive to fabricate | Michigan reasonably found stronger indicia: voluntary, unprompted, addressed to parents, contrite/self-incriminating, written when death imminent; Cassaday was not a typical codefendant under pressure | Held for State: application was not unreasonable under AEDPA; fairminded jurists could agree |
| Whether admission of the suicide note violated the Confrontation Clause as applied | Admission violated Miller’s Sixth Amendment right because the declarant was unavailable and the statement was testimonial/unreliable under Confrontation Clause principles | Under Roberts (the controlling law at state adjudication), the note bore adequate indicia of reliability and its admission was permissible | Held for State: no Confrontation Clause violation under the applicable Roberts standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (hearsay from unavailable declarant admissible only if it bears adequate indicia of reliability)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (abrogated Roberts by requiring exclusion of testimonial hearsay unless prior cross-examination)
- Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34 (2011) ("clearly established Federal law" for §2254(d) is law at time of state-court adjudication)
- Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990) (limits on using corroboration to supply particularized guarantees of trustworthiness)
- Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (2010) (AEDPA gives state courts leeway where general rules permit reasonable disagreement)
- Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12 (2013) (habeas relief requires state-court ruling to be beyond fairminded disagreement)
- Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895) (historical rationale for dying-declaration reliability)