Timothy Etherton v. Steven Rivard
800 F.3d 737
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Etherton was convicted in Michigan for possession with intent to deliver cocaine after a short trial and a video was shown; a 125.2 gram bag of cocaine was found in the car but fingerprints were not matched.
- Testimony included co-defendant Pollie, who admitted various details and possible motive to lie, and an anonymous tip introduced for its truth about a white Audi with two white males carrying cocaine.
- The anonymous tip was elicited on three occasions during trial and repeatedly referenced in closing arguments by the prosecution.
- Etherton challenged the tip’s admissibility on confrontation grounds; defense objected at trial as hearsay but not clearly on Confrontation Clause grounds.
- Post-conviction, Etherton sought relief in Michigan courts, raising six grounds including ineffective assistance and confrontation issues; the state courts denied relief under procedural-default rules.
- Etherton filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied some claims but certified four issues for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause error from tip admission | Etherton argues tip was testimonial and admitted for truth, violating Confrontation Clause. | Rivard contends either no violation or harmless error; trial court’s instructions cured prejudice. | Tip admissibility violated Confrontation Clause; prejudicial error. |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising Confrontation issue | Etherton's appellate counsel should have raised the Confrontation argument; omission prejudiced him. | Rivard asserts no deficiency or prejudice in counsel's performance. | Appellate counsel ineffective; belated appeal on Confrontation issue warranted. |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising trial-counsel issues | Appellate counsel should have raised trial-counsel deficiencies (including confrontation issue). | Rivard contends trial issues lacked merit or prejudice. | Appellate counsel deficient; belated appeal on trial-counsel issues warranted. |
| Effect of the tip on the overall trial fairness | Error significantly affected fairness given reliance on uncorroborated co-defendant testimony. | Rivard argues the tip’s impact was limited and not prejudice-inducing. | Constitutional error prejudicial; affected fairness and integrity of proceedings. |
| Limitations on relief under AEDPA after constitutional violation | Relief should be granted consistent with Strickland and AEDPA; issues should be reconsidered. | Rivard argues standard AEDPA deference limits relief. | Relief ordered via belated appeal/new trial or new appeal process consistent with AEDPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause scope)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (emergency/911 statements and testimonial nature)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (volunteered testimony can trigger Confrontation Clause protections)
- United States v. Cromer, 389 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2004) (anonymous informants testimonial; cross-examination essential)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (guard against unreasonableness under Strickland vs. §2254(d))
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance; deficiency and prejudice prongs)
- Carines v. State, 460 Mich. 750 (Mich. 1999) (plain error rule and procedural default framework in Michigan)
- People v. Shafier, 483 Mich. 205 (Mich. 2009) (prosecutorial error impacting fairness; mirrors appellate prejudice)