Steven Phillips v. Debra Herndon, 730 F.3d 773

Background

Steven Wayne Phillips was convicted of murder and found to have personally discharged a firearm; he received consecutive 25-years-to-life terms for murder and the firearm enhancement under Cal. Penal Code § 12022.53(d).
Phillips’s accomplice, Robert Cress, initially identified Phillips as the shooter on two occasions, but the next morning told police he (Cress) was the shooter.
The trial court excluded all of Cress’s statements, concluding Cress’s later confession lacked sufficient indicia of trustworthiness because it contradicted his earlier statements and physical evidence.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning Cress had given three wholly inconsistent accounts and a jury would likely reject the exculpatory statement if admitted.
Phillips sought federal habeas relief claiming exclusion of Cress’s confession violated his right to present a complete defense; the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the state-court decision was unreasonable under AEDPA.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the state-court exclusion was a reasonable application of Supreme Court precedent and not an unreasonable factual determination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether excluding Cress’s third-party confession violated Phillips’s right to present a complete defense	Exclusion deprived Phillips of exculpatory evidence that he was not the shooter	Exclusion was proper because the confession lacked indicia of trustworthiness and was contradicted by earlier statements and evidence	Court held exclusion did not violate federal right; state court reasonably found statement unreliable under state law and AEDPA deferential review applies
Whether the California Court of Appeal’s opinion is entitled to AEDPA deference despite not citing federal law	Phillips argued the state decision didn’t address federal law and thus might not get full deference	State ruling can receive deference if state-law rule is at least as protective as federal standard	Held state-court decision entitled to AEDPA deference (Richter/Johnson framework)
Whether inconsistent prior statements alone can render a third-party confession untrustworthy	Phillips argued the confession’s inculpatory nature against penal interest made it inherently trustworthy	State and federal precedent recognize inconsistency undermines trustworthiness and may justify exclusion	Held inconsistencies supported the state court’s reliability determination; exclusion reasonable
Whether exclusion was harmless or required reversal	Phillips argued exclusion affected firearm enhancement conviction	Respondent argued exclusion would not have changed verdict because other evidence implicated Phillips as shooter	Held exclusion did not warrant habeas relief under AEDPA; state decision reasonable given record

Key Cases Cited

Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA deference and presumption that last reasoned state decision adjudicated the claim)
Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088 (2013) (state decisions denying relief without citing federal law may still get AEDPA deference if state rule subsumes federal standard)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (defendant entitled to meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense)
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (states have broad latitude to exclude evidence under rules of evidence)
People v. Cudjo, 6 Cal. 4th 585 (1993) (California’s approach to trustworthiness of third-party confessions under Cal. Evid. Code § 1230)
Rhoades v. Henry, 638 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010) (exclusion of unreliable third-party confession did not violate due process)
United States v. Moore, 651 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (contradictions in declarant’s statements can render them untrustworthy under Rule 804(b)(3))