Woods v. Etherton, 136 S. Ct. 1149

Background

In 2006 Michigan officers stopped a white Audi matching an anonymous tip; Timothy Etherton was driving and Ryan Pollie was a passenger; police found 125.2 grams of cocaine in a driver-side door compartment.
Etherton was tried in state court for possession with intent to deliver; central dispute was whether Etherton or Pollie possessed the cocaine.
Pollie testified for the prosecution under a plea deal, giving an account consistent with aspects of the anonymous tip. The prosecution and three officers referenced the anonymous tip at trial; the court instructed the jury that the tip was admitted only to explain police conduct, not as evidence.
Etherton was convicted; state appeals were denied. He raised postconviction claims that (1) admission of the anonymous tip violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting, and (3) appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising (1) and (2).
A state habeas court rejected most claims on procedural or deference grounds; federal district court denied relief, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective and that no fairminded jurist could disagree. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Sixth Circuit.

Issues

Issue	Etherton's Argument	State/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether admission of the anonymous tip violated the Confrontation Clause	The tip was admitted for its truth and bolstered Pollie’s testimony; Etherton had no chance to cross-examine the tipster	The tip was background explaining police conduct and not admitted for its truth; facts in the tip were uncontested	The Court did not decide the Confrontation Clause merits; held that reasonable jurists could disagree about whether the tip was admitted for its truth under AEDPA deference
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the tip	Failure to object deprived Etherton of fair representation and a chance to block the tip's impact	Trial counsel may have strategically declined to object to undermine passenger Pollie’s credibility and support defense theory	The Court concluded a fairminded jurist could find counsel’s conduct reasonable; did not disturb state court’s Strickland-based conclusion under AEDPA
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the confrontation/ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal	Appellate counsel’s omission was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial, satisfying Strickland and AEDPA standards	Appellate counsel reasonably declined to raise issues because trial counsel’s choices could be strategic and the tip’s facts were uncontested; no prejudice shown	Court reversed Sixth Circuit: reasonable jurists could disagree, so AEDPA precludes federal habeas relief; appellate counsel not shown objectively unreasonable under doubly deferential review
Proper standard of federal habeas review when ineffective-assistance claims are raised	AEDPA and Strickland standards should permit relief here because state decision was unreasonable	State-court application of Strickland is entitled to double deference under AEDPA; federal courts must allow fairminded disagreement	Court reiterated AEDPA’s deferential standard and the need to afford deference to both state courts and counsel; reversed Sixth Circuit for failing to apply that standard

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause prohibits admission of out-of-court testimonial statements without opportunity for cross-examination)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA requires deference; state-court merits determinations preclude federal habeas if fairminded jurists could disagree)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (context on standard for assessing claims under AEDPA)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (ineffective-assistance claims on federal habeas receive doubly deferential review)
Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12 (2013) (presumption that counsel rendered adequate assistance and deference to counsel’s decisions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Etherton v. Rivard, 800 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 2015) (court of appeals’ decision finding appellate counsel ineffective and reversing district court)