360 F. Supp. 3d 639
E.D. Mich.2018Background
- Linda Stermer was convicted of felony murder (predicate felony: arson) for the death of her husband after a 2007 house fire; she received a life sentence.
- Critical factual disputes: no accelerant detected in the house, gasoline detected on the decedent's clothing but not on Petitioner's; two prior fires involving the decedent were alleged; prosecution theory: Petitioner set the fire and ran over her husband; defense: accidental fire or decedent set the fire and petitioner did not intentionally run him over.
- Key trial evidence: testimony of the State fire-investigation expert (Detective Leroy) opining arson; jailhouse and lay witnesses who gave inculpatory statements (some with mental-health issues); defense witnesses attesting to Petitioner's character and alternative theories.
- At closing, the prosecutor repeatedly labeled Petitioner a liar, vouched for State witnesses, and misstated certain facts (e.g., prior fires and cell-phone evidence); defense counsel did not object during closing.
- Defense counsel also failed to consult or present a fire-science/arson expert; Petitioner sought one pretrial and after conviction; an evidentiary hearing later developed expert testimony undermining the prosecution expert's methodology.
- Procedural posture: state appeals denied; Petitioner filed a §2254 habeas petition; district court held an evidentiary hearing, found prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance (trial and appellate), granted a conditional writ and bond pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Stermer's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (vouching, name-calling, misstating facts) | Prosecutor repeatedly vouched, called Petitioner a liar, and misstated evidence, violating due process | Prosecutor argued reasonable inferences and disputing relevance of alleged misstatements; state courts rejected claim | Court: statements were improper, repeated, deliberate, and flagrant; state-court rejection was an unreasonable application of Darden/precedent; relief warranted |
| Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to closing and for not consulting an arson expert | Counsel's failure to object to misconduct and failure to retain an expert prejudiced defense; adequate investigation was not done | State court denied on procedure/merits; Respondent contended habeas record limits and lack of expert affidavit | Court: counsel deficient under Strickland for both failures; prejudice found given weaknesses in State's case and likely impact of expert cross-examination; relief warranted |
| Use of evidentiary hearing after state denial (Cullen/Pinholster limits) | Petitioner sought hearing because state trial court denied relief without a merits factual development; she was diligent in state proceedings | Respondent argued Pinholster bars expanding the record for claims adjudicated on the merits | Court: trial court denial was procedurally based (Mich. Ct. R. 6.508(D)(3)), not a full merits adjudication; evidentiary hearing was proper; even if Pinholster applied, record still supports relief |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for omitting prosecutorial-misconduct and IAC claims on direct appeal | Appellate counsel omitted stronger, obvious issues and raised weaker bindover claim instead; omission prejudiced petitioner | Respondent defended appellate strategy as reasonable issue selection | Court: appellate counsel was ineffective under Strickland; omitted issues were stronger and likely would have succeeded on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial misconduct violates due process when it so infects the trial with unfairness)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (habeas review under §2254(d)(1) is generally limited to the state-court record)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (standards for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" under AEDPA)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (state-court decisions are given deference; federal court must ask whether state ruling was an objectively unreasonable application)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutor's duty is to seek justice, not merely secure conviction)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (habeas corpus protects meaningful review; state procedures that leave only an "empty shell" may raise Suspension Clause concerns)