Tina Clarke v. Millicent Warren
556 F. App'x 396
6th Cir.2014Background
- In Jan. 2001 Tina Clarke and Patricia Plummer went to a house where Plummer shot two brothers; both victims later died. Clarke carried the gun and handed it to Plummer. Clarke confessed to police and implicated the robbery plan.
- Clarke was tried with co-defendants (separate juries), convicted of two counts of felony murder, armed robbery, conspiracy, felon-in-possession, and felony-firearm; sentenced to life plus additional terms.
- On direct appeal and state collateral review Michigan courts affirmed convictions and denied postconviction relief. Clarke filed federal habeas petitions raising prosecutorial misconduct, erroneous jury instructions, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
- The district court denied habeas relief under AEDPA; this appeal addresses limited issues preserved by certificate of appealability.
- The Sixth Circuit applied AEDPA deference and Strickland where applicable, assessing (1) alleged prosecutorial misstatements of fact and law, (2) jury-instruction errors on mens rea and armed robbery intent, and (3) counsel performance (suppression motion, failure to develop PTSD evidence, failure to object).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor misstated evidence (e.g., said Clarke was shooter, stole wallet, manipulated cousin) | Misstatements were prejudicial and inflammatory, warranting reversal | Statements were argument, not evidence; jury instructed counsel arguments are not evidence; shooter identity immaterial under aiding-and-abetting theory | No due-process violation under Darden; misstatements were either harmless or immaterial to guilt as aider-and-abettor |
| Prosecutor misstated felony-murder mens rea | Prosecutor told jurors mens rea was satisfied by creating a dangerous situation, effectively eliminating intent/knowledge requirement | Closing argument less authoritative than instructions; court instructed correctly on mens rea after closing | Prosecutor mischaracterized law but no reasonable likelihood jurors convicted without mens rea because court correctly instructed jury; no habeas relief under AEDPA |
| Jury instruction omissions/errors (armed robbery intent; felony-murder and 2d-degree murder instructions) | Trial court omitted intent-to-permanently-deprive element for armed robbery and gave confusing/misstated mens rea and second-degree murder instructions | Any omission or slip was harmless because intent-to-deprive was uncontested/overwhelming and court twice correctly instructed mens rea; misstatement of 2d-degree murder increased burden on prosecution | Omission of intent element was error under §2254(d)(2) but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; mens rea and 2d-degree errors did not infect trial — no relief |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to suppress statement; failure to develop/call PTSD expert; failure to object to prosecutor) | Counsel was deficient for not moving to suppress a coerced/unreliable statement, for not developing PTSD mitigation, and for not objecting to prosecutor | Statement was voluntary and admissible; court and jury knew of assault history so PTSD evidence likely would not change sentence; objections to prosecutor would likely fail or be overruled and misstatements caused no prejudice | Counsel was not ineffective under Strickland/AEDPA: suppression motion would not have succeeded; no reasonable probability PTSD evidence or objections would have changed outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial-misconduct due-process standard)
- Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (weight of counsel argument vs. court instruction)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard)
- Waddington v. Sarausad, 555 U.S. 179 (harmless-error standard in jury confusion/misstatement contexts)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (omitted-element harmless-error analysis)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (substantial and injurious effect standard for habeas)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA/Strickland double deference)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (voluntariness of confession)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (prejudice inquiry in mitigation evidence)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (limitations on reversing for prosecutor argument)