Wiggins v. Boyette, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2888

Rae Carruth was convicted in North Carolina of conspiracy to commit murder, discharging a firearm into occupied property, and using an instrument to destroy an unborn child in the Cherica Adams murder case.
Adams, eight months pregnant with Carruth’s child, was shot on Rea Road; she provided a 12-minute 911 call describing Carruth’s role before dying a month later, with the child surviving with brain damage.
The State admitted Adams’s statements to Officer Grant and Nurse Willard, and Adams’s handwritten notes, at Carruth’s trial over defense objections; Adams did not testify due to death.
The State’s case also featured Kennedy’s testimony (co-conspirator), Adams’s cousin and father corroborating certain facts, and cell phone records; the 911 call remained a central, compelling piece of evidence.
Carruth fled North Carolina after Adams’s death; he was located in the trunk of a friend’s car in Tennessee and later charged with murder.
On MAR (state post-conviction relief), the NC courts found the Confrontation Clause violations harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the federal district court denied habeas relief with a certificate on Confrontation Clause grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause error harmless?	Carruth argues the three improperly admitted statements had a substantial and injurious effect.	Wiggins asserts the statements were cumulative and outweighed by the 911 call and other strong evidence.	No substantial and injurious effect; harmless error under Brecht.
AEDPA and harmlessness standard here?	Carruth contends AEDPA deference alters harmlessness review.	State contends Brecht standard governs habeas review post-Fry.	Brecht standard governs; no need for Brecht plus AEDPA deferential review.
Was the outcome affected by the admission of statements given cross-examination limits?	Imagines lack of cross-examination undermines reliability and prejudices the result.	Defense cross-examined other witnesses; substantial corroboration existed.	Harmless given corroboration and overall strength of the State’s case.

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1993) (harmless-error standard for habeas review)
O’Neal v. McAinch, 513 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1995) (grave doubt standard for harmlessness review)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (factors for harmlessness of Confrontation Clause errors)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (jury’s verdict not necessarily negated by inconsistent verdicts)
Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2007) (post-Fry standards for harmlessness review under AEDPA)
Kennedy v. Lockyer, 379 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2004) (harmlessness considerations in affirming convictions)
Valencia v. United States, 600 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2010) (difficult cases do not always require relief)
Aldridge v. United States, 413 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2005) (difficult cases may still support denial of habeas relief)
Duncan v. United States, 598 F.2d 839 (4th Cir. 1979) (inconsistent verdicts do not prove prejudice)