Sussman v. Jenkins
636 F.3d 329
7th Cir.2011Background
- The State of Wisconsin moved to stay the Seventh Circuit mandate to permit a possible certiorari petition, which this court denied.*
- The stay motion sought to show a reasonable probability four justices would grant certiorari and five would reverse, and to balance equities in favor of staying the mandate.
- The State argued the panel failed to apply AEDPA deference to the performance prong of Strickland, signaling a conflict with Harrington v. Richter.
- The court found Harrington inapplicable here and held Premo v. Moore largely irrelevant to this case, with the prejudice issue tied to Confrontation Clause errors.
- Sussman’s claim implicated trial-record Confrontation Clause concerns and state court misread federal law in evaluating prejudice, yet the state court held no prejudice.
- The burden on the stay remains irreparable injury to the State’s interests absent a stay, which the court found unproven, leading to denial of the stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AEDPA deference and Strickland prejudice outcome | Sussman argues the panel misapplied AEDPA deference to Strickland | Jenkins contends Harrington requires different handling of deference | No; Harrington inapplicable; deference issues resolved in Sussman’s favor against the State |
| Premo relevance to state-court no-prejudice ruling | Sussman asserts Premo limits federal review of state-court prejudice determinations | Jenkins argues Premo controls and forbids re-weighing state-law conclusions | Premo largely irrelevant; federal court may assess reasonableness of state-court action when federal law implicated |
| Confrontation Clause and state court reasoning | Sussman raised Confrontation Clause issues before district court; state court reportedly did not address them | State contends issue was not properly presented or addressed | Federal review examined potential Confrontation Clause impact; Wisconsin court record read, but issue not affirmatively sustained by state courts |
Key Cases Cited
- Books v. City of Elkhart, 239 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2001) (standard for stay and certiorari considerations)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (AEDPA deference when no state explanation given; limitations discussed)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (deference to counsel's performance in Strickland context)
- Premo v. Moore, 131 S. Ct. 733 (S. Ct. 2011) (limits on reweighing state-court decisions in some Strickland contexts)
- Redmond v. Kingston, 240 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2001) (used to explain review framework for state court errors in federal habeas)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (S. Ct. 1974) (Confrontation Clause relevance to evaluation of prejudice)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (S. Ct. 1986) (Confrontation Clause and evidentiary considerations)
- Olden v. Kentucky, 475 U.S. 673 (S. Ct. 1986) (Confrontation Clause jurisprudence)