Taylor v. Prelesnik, 2:09-cv-14214

Taylor, a Michigan state prisoner, challenged his murder conviction via habeas corpus in the Eastern District of Michigan.
Convicted on Aug. 5, 2005, of first-degree premeditated murder and felony-firearm after a Macomb County trial; sentenced to life without parole plus a 2-year consecutive term.
Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction; the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
The federal petition was filed Oct. 27, 2009, invoking AEDPA review and raising multiple claims, including a confrontation claim based on dying declarations.
The Court recommends denying the writ but granting a certificate of appealability on the confrontation issue due to ongoing questions about the status of testimonial dying declarations under Crawford/Bryant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation and dying declarations admissibility	Taylor contends the victim’s statements were testimonial and inadmissible without witness cross-examination.	Respondent argues the statements were non-testimonial or admissible as dying declarations; Crawford limits, but does not bar, their use.	No habeas relief on confrontation claim; reasonable application of Crawford/Dieing declaration doctrine; COA granted on this issue.
Sufficiency of the evidence	Taylor asserts insufficient evidence to prove identity and premeditation.	State argues substantial evidence showed identity, motive, and premeditation.	Not entitled to relief; evidence viewed in light favorable to prosecution supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecutorial misconduct	Claims of prejudicial conduct by the prosecutor at trial.	Prosecutorial comments were either admissible or cured by limiting instructions; good faith belief in admissibility.	Not entitled to relief; conduct did not render trial fundamentally unfair.
Fair cross-section of the jury	Jury pool allegedly underrepresented African Americans.	Petitioner failed to show systematic exclusion beyond a single venire.	Not entitled to relief; no showing of systematic exclusion; underrepresentation insufficient to prove violation.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation Clause scope)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (nontestimonial hearsay not within Confrontation Clause)
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (S. Ct. 2011) (reaffirmed focus on ongoing emergency in determining testimonial nature)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (dying declarations and forfeiture-by-wrongdoing guidance under Crawford)
Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (U.S. 1895) (historic dying-declaration exception to hearsay rule)