Sussman v. Jenkins
636 F.3d 329
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sussman appeals a denial of a stay of the Seventh Circuit's mandate, seeking to file a certiorari petition in the Supreme Court after a adverse ruling.
- Wisconsin sought a stay based on a reasonable probability of certiorari grant and potential reversal, citing Books v. City of Elkhart.
- The Seventh Circuit denied the stay, with Ripple, J. in chambers, concluding the stay was improper under the circumstances.
- The underlying dispute concerns whether AEDPA deference was correctly applied to the Strickland prejudice analysis and related Confrontation Clause concerns.
- The state court held Sussman did not demonstrate prejudice under Strickland because the motion to admit evidence would have failed, a conclusion the Seventh Circuit viewed as misapplying federal law.
- The court discussed Premo v. Moore to assess whether a federal court may review state-court determinations when the state court misapplies Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AEDPA deference to Strickland prong | Sussman contends deference should not override prejudice determinations. | Jenkins argues deference limits the federal review of state-court conclusions. | Denial upheld; reviewing court finds misapplication of AEDPA deference not reversible. |
| Effect of Premo v. Moore on review | Premo prohibits going behind state‑court no-prejudice determinations when applicable. | Premo is not controlling in this Strickland/confrontation context here. | Premo does not require reversing the state-court prejudice analysis in these facts. |
| Confrontation Clause error and prejudice | State court misread Confrontation Clause, affecting Strickland prejudice analysis. | Wisconsin properly evaluated the record under applicable standards. | State court error in Confrontation Clause assessment affected the prejudice conclusion, but does not warrant relief on the stay. |
| Fairness of state-court record review | Court correctly identified arguments supporting the state court's decision. | Court purportedly searched for arguments to undermine the ruling. | Court conducted meaningful review of the state court decision; no reversible error identified for the stay denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA review when state court offers explanation)
- Premo v. Moore, 131 S. Ct. 733 (2011) (limits on going behind state‑court prejudice determinations)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (Confrontation Clause considerations in evaluating prejudice)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Confrontation Clause and reliability of inadequately developed trials)
- Redmond v. Kingston, 240 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2001) (framework for reviewing state-court decisions under Strickland and related rights)
- Books v. City of Elkhart, 239 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2001) (standards for granting stays of the mandate)