Waire v. Stephenson, 5:21-cv-11728

Jordan Dangelo Waire was convicted in Michigan state court of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, and associated firearm offenses, arising from the 2016 shooting death of Western Michigan University student Jacob Jones during a planned robbery.
The jury's findings were based on substantial evidence, including co-defendant Joeviair Kennedy’s preliminary exam testimony (admitted at trial as Kennedy invoked his Fifth Amendment right), corroborative eyewitness identifications, physical evidence, and testimony about Waire’s attempt to intimidate witnesses.
Waire appealed his convictions through the Michigan courts, raising four main constitutional arguments, all of which were rejected.
He then filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Eastern District of Michigan, advancing the same claims.
The district court reviewed the petition under the deferential standards imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
The court denied the habeas petition, a certificate of appealability, and leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter	Court’s refusal violated due process and was not supported by the evidence.	Evidence did not support lesser charge; no constitutional requirement for such instruction.	No error; instruction not constitutionally required in non-capital cases, not supported by facts.
Denial of right to testify & ineffective counsel	Was not advised/inquired by counsel about testifying; thus, deprived of right to testify.	Defendant did not assert desire to testify; no evidence or prejudice shown.	No violation; waiver presumed, no showing of ignorance/prejudice; counsel not ineffective.
Admission of gruesome autopsy photographs	Admission was unfairly prejudicial; counsel ineffective for not objecting.	Photographs were relevant and admissible; overwhelming evidence rendered any error harmless.	No error; photos admissible for relevant purpose; any error harmless; counsel not ineffective.
Admission of co-defendant’s preliminary testimony	Admitting prior testimony violated Confrontation Clause rights.	Co-defendant unavailable; prior opportunity and motive for cross-examination met requirements.	No violation; witness unavailable and adequate cross-exam in prior proceeding satisfied standard.

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (habeas review of jury instructions and state law errors; fundamental unfairness standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (right of criminal defendant to testify in own defense)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause prohibits admission of testimonial statements unless witness unavailable and prior cross-exam opportunity)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless error standard on habeas review)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standard for federal habeas relief)
Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12 (2003) (definition of “contrary to” and “unreasonable application” under AEDPA)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (scope of rights under the Confrontation Clause)