# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 10 49

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ral ph Arm st ro ng

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Ray H ob bs , Direc to r, Arka ns as Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

23 , 20 12
File d: Nov em

be r 6, 2 01 2 (C or rect ed : 1 1/ 08 /2 01 2)

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MELLOY, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e

Ral ph Arm st ro ng was co nv ic te d i n A r k a n s a s st at e co ur t of two co un ts of

cap it al m ur de r an d se nt en ced to li fe im pr is on m en t wit ho ut th e po ss ib il it y of pa ro le

fo r ki ll i n g h i s es tra ng ed wife an d th ei r un bo rn ch il d. At tri al

, th e co ur t ex cl ud ed

un de r a st at e ru le ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce po in ti ng to th e gu il t of two o t h e r wom en

. Th a t r u l e ad m it s su ch ev id en ce on ly whe re th ere is a di rect li nk be twee n th e cri m e

an d th e th ird pa rti es im

pl ic at ed

. Arm st ro ng no w se ek s fed eral ha be as rel ie f un de r th eAnt it erro ris m a nd Effect iv e Deat h Pen al ty Act (AEDPA), arg ui ng th at th is

ev id en ti ary ru le is co nt rary to

, or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d

fed eral la w. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Arm st ro ng 's pe ti ti on , bu t gr an te d hi m a 1

cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y (COA) on th e is su e of whe th er he was un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

de pr iv ed of a m ean in gf

ul op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t a co m pl et e de fen se

. W e no w affi rm

.

I.

On Febr ua ry 14

, 20 04

, po li ce in Pul as ki Co un ty, Ark an sa s fou nd th e bo dy of

Ral ph Arm st ro ng 's es tra ng ed wife , Da sh un da Arm st ro ng , b ur ni ng in an ab an do ne d

va n on ru ral McDo na ld Ro ad

. It was la te r de te rm in ed th at at th e ti m e sh e was ki ll ed

, Das hu nd a was pr eg na nt an d th at A r m st ro ng was th e ch il d's fat he r. On th e ni gh t of

h e r d eat h, Das hu nd a was at a ha ir ap po in tm en t wit h he r si st er un ti l ab ou t 1: 00 am , aft er whi ch sh e pl an ne d to m eet Arm st ro ng

. Arm st ro ng to ld th e po li ce th at Das hu nd a

ne ve r arri ve d at hi s ho us e as pl an ne d. Upo n in ve st ig at io n, th e po li ce di sc ov ered th at

on th e ni gh t Das hu nd a was ki ll ed

, Arm st ro ng m ad e se ve r al cel l ph on e cal ls to a

fo rm er gi rlf

rie nd

, Kim W al le r, th at were ro ut ed th ro ug h a cel lu la r to wer ne ar whe re

Das hu nd a's bo dy was fo un d.

W he n W al le r sp ok e to po li ce, she to ld th em sh e sp ok e to an d saw Arm st ro ng

t h e n i g h t of Das hu nd a's de at h. W al le r la te r te st ifi ed th at sh e pi ck ed up Arm st ro n g

fro m w h e r e t h e v an was st il l bu rn in g an d th at Arm st ro ng to ld he r he se t it on fir e. Upo n sea rch in g Arm st ro ng 's ho m e, po li ce fou nd in fo rm at io n on a co m pu te r rel at ed

to ch an gi ng on e's id en ti ty. The y al so fo un d l e t t e r s fro m va rio us cred it or s th at

rev eal ed an on go in g a nd co nt en ti ou s d iv or ce b et ween Dash un da an d Arm st ro ng

.

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Uni te d St at e s D i st ric t Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-At tri al

, Arm st ro ng at te m pt ed to in t r o du ce ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s arg um en t

th at Kim W al le r an d h e r t w o si st ers , Karen an d Yol an da

, ki ll ed Das hu nd a. Tha t

ev id en ce i nc lu de d:

[A]n au di o ta pe whi ch co nt ai ne d st at em en ts by th e W al l e r s is te rs th reat en in g to k il l Das hu nd a Arm st ro ng

. . . , th e na m es of al l th ree W al le r si st ers who ha d th reat en ed hi s wife ; reco rd s of th e vi ol en t

en co un te rs be twee n th e wom en in cl ud in g a co ur t cas e; reco rd s fro m th e
pr os ecu to r's of

fic e th at sh owe d m

ut ua l ha ras sm en t be t w een Mrs

. Arm st ro ng an d Ms

. W al le r; an d th e pr es en ce of Kim W al le r at th e cri m e

sc en e th e n ig ht of t he m

ur de r.

Arm st ro ng v. St at e, 23 3 S.W .3d 62 7, 63 6 (Ark

. 20 06 ). The tri al co ur t ex cl ud ed m uc h

of th is ev id en ce ba se d on a ru le fro m th e Ark an sa s st at e c a s e Zi n g er v. St at e, 85 2 2

S.W .2d 32 0 (Ark

. 1 99 3)

, un de r whi ch de fen da nt s m ay no t in tro du ce "'ev id en ce

te nd in g to sh ow th at so m eo ne ot he r th an th e de fen da nt co m m it te d th e cri m e ch arg ed '"

un le ss th at ev id en ce "'p oi nt s di rect ly to th e gu il t of th e th ird pa rty. Evi de nc e whi ch

do es no m or e th an crea te an i n f e r e n c e or co njec tu re as to an ot he r's gu il t is

in ad m is si bl e.'" Arm st ro ng , 23 3 S.W .3d at 63 7 (q uo ti ng Zin ge r, 85 2 S.W .2d at 32 3)

. A jury su bs eq ue nt ly co nv ic te d Arm st ro ng of two co un ts of cap it al m ur de r, an d a jud ge sen te nc ed hi m

to li fe i n p ris on wit ho ut th e p os si bi li ty of pa ro le

.

Arm st ro ng th en fil ed a pe ti ti on in Ark an sa s tri al co ur t fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f.

In h i s p e t i ti on , he arg ue d, in te r al ia

, th at th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t cas e,

The tri al co ur t ad m it te d ev id en ce rel ev an t to th e g u i l t o f Arm st ro ng 's 2 gi rlf rie nd

, Kim W al l e r , bu t ex cl ud ed ev id en ce co nc ern in g th e gu il t of he r si st ers , Karen an d Yol an da

. To su pp o r t t h e a rg um en t th at Kim W al le r ki ll ed Das hu nd a, Arm st ro ng pr es en te d ev id en ce o f m ut ua l ha ras sm en t be twee n Kim W al le r an d

Das hu nd a, Kim

W al le r's pre se nc e at th e m ur de r sc en e, an d Ki m W al le r's li es to th e
po li ce du rin g th ei r in ve st ig at io n. The tri al co ur t ex cl ud ed on ly ev id en ce sp eci fic al ly
rel ev an t to th e gu il t of th e ot he r two si st ers , Karen an d Yol an da W al le r, na m el y a ta pe

reco rd in g o n wh ic h t he two si st ers all eg ed ly m ad e d eat h t hr eat s t o Das hu nd a.

-3

-Hol m es v. So ut h Caro li na , 54 7 U.S. 31 9 (2 00 6)

, de ci de d on e da y be fo re th e m an da te

on th e di rect ap pe al in th is cas e wa s i s s u e d

, r en de red th e tri al co ur t's ex cl us io n of

ev id en ce im

pl ic at in g th e W al le r si st ers pu rs ua nt to Zin ge r un co ns ti tu ti on al

. The tri al

co ur t d en ie d re li ef af

te r a h eari ng , and th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t af fir m ed

.

Arm st ro ng th en pe ti ti on ed fo r fed eral rel ie f pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 in th e

East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, pr es en ti ng t hr ee fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al is su es

. The

m ag is tra te reco m

m en de d th at Arm st ro ng 's petit ion be dis m iss ed

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t

ad op te d th e reco m

m en da ti on

. Arm st ro ng th en fil ed a n o t i ce of ap pe al an d an

ap pl ic at io n fo r a COA. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e COA an d cert ifi ed to th is Co ur t

on e is su e: whe th er th e ap pl ic at io n of Zin ge r to ex cl ud e e x c ul pa to ry ev id en ce

"u nc on st it ut io na ll y de pr iv ed [Arm st ro ng ] of a m ean in gf ul op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t a

co m pl et e de fen se as gu aran te e d b y th e Si xt h an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts ."

Arm st ro ng v. Hob bs

, No. 09 -0 01 00 BSM (E.D. Ark

. Dec. 30

, 20 10 ) (o rd er is s ui ng

cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y ).

II.

A.

Und er AEDPA, an ap pl ic at io n fo r a writ of ha be as co rp us m ay no t be gr an te d

un le ss t h e s t a t e co ur t's de ci si on was "co nt rary to

, or in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le

ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d Fed eral la w, as de te rm in ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t

of th e Uni te d St at es ." 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). In W il li am s v. Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 36 2
(2 00 0)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at "co nt rary to " an d "u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of "

ha ve di st in ct m ean in gs

. A de ci si on is "co nt rary to " cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral la w if

i t " a r riv es at a co nc lu si on op po si te to th at reac he d by [th e Su pr em e Co ur t] on a

qu es ti on of la w," or if it "co nf ro nt s fact s th at are m at eri al ly in di st in gu is ha bl e fro m a
rel ev an t Su pr em e Co ur t pr ece d e n t a n d arri ve s at a res ul t op po si te to [th at of th e

Su pr em e Co ur t]." Id

. at 40 5. A de ci si on is "an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of " cl earl y

-4

-es ta bl is he d fed eral la w if is cl earl y erro ne ou s, th at is

, if no "'fa irmind ed juri st s co ul d

di sa gr ee' on th e co rrec tn es s of th e st at e co ur t's de ci si on ." Harri ng to n v. Ri ch te r, 13 1

S. Ct

. 77 0, 78 6 (2 01 1) (q uo ti ng Yarb ro ug h v. Alva rad o, 54 1 U.S. 65 2, 66 4 (20 04 )).

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s no te d th at if th e AEDPA st an da rd is "d iff ic ul t to m eet

, th at is be cau se it was m ean t to be ." Harri ng to n, 13 1 S. Ct . a t 78 6. Un de r AEDPA,

th e writ of ha be as co rp us is tru ly m ean t to be an ex tra or di na ry writ : "Se ct io n 22 54 (d )

refl ect s th e vi ew th at ha be as co rp us is a 'gu ard ag ai ns t ex tre m e m al fu n c ti on s in th e

st at e cri m in al jus ti ce sy st em s,' no t a su bs ti tu te fo r or di na ry erro r co rrec ti on th ro ug h

ap pe al ." Id . ( ci ti ng Ja ck so n v. Virg in ia , 4 4 3 U

. S

. 3 0 7

, 33 2 n.5 (1 97 9) (St ev en s, J.,

co nc ur rin g i n ju dg m en t))

.

B.

In t h i s cas e, Arm st ro ng arg ue s th at Hol m es v. So ut h Caro li na , 54 7 U.S. 31 9
(2 00 6)

, ren de red th e Ark an sa s co ur t's us e of th e ev id en ti ary ru le fro m Zin ge r v. St at e,

85 2 S.W .2d 32 0 (Ark

. 19 93 ), co nt rary to

, or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of, clear ly

es ta bl is he d fe de ral law.

In cri m in al cas es , Ark an sa s co ur ts ex cl ud e ev i d e n c e "'t en di ng to sh ow th at

so m eo ne ot he r th an th e de fen da nt co m m it te d th e cri m e ch arg ed ,'" un le ss th at

ev id e n ce "'p oi nt s di rect ly to th e gu il t of th e th ird pa rty. Evi de nc e whi ch do es no

m or e th an crea te an in fere nc e or co njec tu re as to an ot he r's gu il t is in ad m is si bl e.'"

Zin ge r, 85 2 S.W .2d at 32 3 (q uo ti ng St at e v. W il so n, 36 7 S.E.2d 58 9, 60 0 (N.C.

19 88 ). In Zin ge r, t w o cri m in al de fen da nt s were on tri al fo r be at in g an d st ab bi ng a
vi ct im to de at h. The de fen da nt s at te m pt ed to in tro du ce ev id en ce of an ot he r m ur de r

in Lou is ia na , whe re th e vi ct im ha d be en be at en an d st ab be d se ve ral ti m es an d le ft in

a p os it io n s im il ar t o t he vi ct im in th e Ark an sa s ca se

. Id

. The se were th e on ly lin ks

be twee n th e two m

ur de rs

. The Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t fo un d th at th e tri al co ur t di d

no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ex cl ud in g ev id en ce of th e o th er m ur de r. "'Ev id en ce of a

-5

-m ere m ot iv e or op po rtu ni ty to co m m it th e cri m e in an ot he r pe rs on , wit ho ut m or e, wil l

no t su ffi ce to rai se a reas on ab le do ub t ab ou t a de fen da nt 's gu il t: th ere m us t be di rect

or ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce li nk in g th e th ird pe rs on to th e act ua l pe rp et rat io n of th e
cri m e.'" Id

. (q uo ti ng Peo pl e v. Kau ris h, 80 2 P.2 d 27 8, 29 5– 96 ) (Cal

. 19 90 ) (in te rn al

m ark s o m it te d)

.

In co nt ras t, th e Uni te d St at es Su pr em e Co ur t in Hol m es fo un d un co ns ti tu ti on al

a So ut h Caro li na ru le th at ex cl ud ed ev id en ce im pl ic at in g th ird pa rti es

. The Co ur t he ld

th at th e ru le im

pe rm is si bl y ba se d ex cl us io n no t on th e st ren gt h of th e ev id en ce at

is su e, bu t in st ead on th e st ren gt h of th e pr os ecu ti on 's cas e as a who le

. Rat he r th an

ev al ua ti ng th e st ren gt h of th e li nk be twee n th e ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce an d th e cas e at

ha nd

, th e So ut h Caro li na ru le ex cl ud ed ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce beca us e "'[i ]n vi ew of

th e st ro ng ev id en ce o f ap pe ll an t's gu il t— es pe ci al ly the fo ren si c ev id en ce—

. . . t he

pr of fere d ev id en ce

. . . di d no t rai se a 'reas on ab le in fere nc e' as to th e ap pe ll an t's own

in no cen ce.'" Id

. at 32 8– 29 (q uo ti ng St at e v. Gay

, 54 1 S.E.2d 54 1, 54 5 (S.C. 20 01 )).

Th e r u l e co nt es te d in Hol m es th us di d no t rat io na ll y se rv e th e le gi ti m at e en d o f

fo cu si ng th e tri al on "ce nt ral is su es by ex cl ud in g ev id en ce th at ha s on ly a ve ry weak

lo gi cal co nn ect io n to th e cen tra l is su es ." Hol m es , 54 7 U.S. at 33 0. Rat he r, it

req ui red th e tri al co ur t to ev al ua te th e pr os ecu ti on 's cas e it se lf, an d if th e ev id en ce

w a s s t r o ng en ou gh

, ex cl ud e ev en hi gh ly pr ob at iv e ev id en ce th at di d no t po se a n

un du e ri sk of h aras sm en t, p reju di ce o r co nf us io n o f th e is su es . Id.

The Su pr em e C o u rt in Hol m es co nt ras te d th e co nt es te d So ut h Caro li na ru le

wit h a no th er So ut h C aro li na rul e, whi ch ex cl ud ed

ev id en ce whi ch can ha ve no ot he r effe ct th an to cas t a ba re su sp ic io n on

an ot he r, or to rai se a co njec tu ral in fere nc e as to th e co m m is si on of t he

c r i m e by an ot he r

. . . . [B]efo re su ch te st im on y can be rece iv ed

, t h e r e

m us t be su ch pr oo f of co nn ect io n wit h it

, su ch a tra in o f f a c ts or ci rcu m st an ces , as te nd s cl earl y to po in t ou t s uc h ot he r pe rs on as th e
gu il ty part y

.

-6

-Hol m es , 54 7 U.S. at 32 8 (q uo ti ng St at e v. Greg or y , 16 S.E.2d 5 3 2

, 5 3 4

– 3 5 (S.C.

19 41 )). The Co ur t n ot ed th at "[s ]uch rul es are wi de ly accep te d," Hol m es , 54 7 U.S.

at 3 2 8

, an d al lo w tri al jud ge s to ex cl ud e ev id en ce who se pr ob at iv e va lu e is

ou twei gh ed by "ce rta in ot he r fact or s su ch as un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us io n of th e is su es ,

or po te nt ia l to m is le ad th e jury." Id

. at 32 6. Thi s reas on in g al m os t cert ai nl y affi rm s

th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of Ark an sa s's Zin ge r ru le

, whi ch is su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar to th e
wid el y acce pt ed So ut h Caro li na ru le

. At th e ve ry le as t, Hol m es in di cat es th e ru le in

Zin ge r is no t co nt rary to cl earl y est ab li sh ed fed eral law. 3

In th is c a s e , t h e tri al co ur t ex cl ud ed ev id en ce po in ti ng to th e W al le r si st ers '

gu il t on th e ba si s of th e Zin ge r ru le

, co nc lu di ng th at "t he ev id en ce p o i n t e d t o b y

Arm st ro ng do es no m or e th an crea te a su sp ic io n or co njec tu re th at th e W al le r si st ers

m ig ht ha ve pl ay ed a ro le in Das hu nd a Arm st ro ng 's de at h." Arm st ro ng , 23 3 S.W .3d

at 63 7. The Ark an sa s co ur t th us ex cl ud ed th e ev id en ce bas ed on th e st ren gt h of the

li nk be twee n th at ev id en ce an d th e cri m e. Thi s is e x a c t l y th e type of an al y si s th e

Su pr em e Co ur t va li da te d in Hol m es , an d th us th e de ci si on in th is cas e is no t co nt rary

to , or a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh ed fed eral law.

C.

Arm st ro ng fu rth er arg ue s th at Ark an sa s co ur ts h a v e tra ns fo rm ed th e Zin ge r

ru le i n t o a pe r se ru le ag ai ns t ev id en ce sh owi ng an ot he r co m m it te d th e cri m e. In

su pp or t of th is arg um en t, Arm st ro ng no te s th at "i n each cas e whe re th e is su e of th ird

In a fo ot no te to th e d is cu ss io n o n t he se acce pt ab le ru le s, th e Su pr em e Co ur t 3

ci te s cas es fro m va rio us juri sd ic ti on s wit h si m il ar ru le s, in cl ud in g th e Ark an sa s cas e, Sh ie ld s v. St at e, 16 6 S.W .3d 28

, 32 (Ark

. 2 00 4)

, whi ch it se lf ci te s Zin ge r as th e

so ur ce fo r th is rul e in Arka ns as . See Ho lm es , 54 7 U.S. at 32 7 n .*.

-7

-pa rty gu il t ev id en ce aro se , th e co ur t ba rred th e in tro du ct io n of th at ev id en ce be cau se

it all eg ed ly did no t co nn ect th e th ird pa rty dir ect ly to t he cri m e."

Arm st ro ng 's arg um en t is un av ai li ng

. As we no te d in Mi dd le to n v. Ro pe r, 49 8

F.3 d 81 2, 82 0 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 7 )

, th e in qu iry un de r AEDPA is whe th er a st at e co ur t

de ci si on is co nt rary to

, or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral

la w, no t whe th er th e st at e co ur t in co rrec tl y ap pl ie d st at e la w. Thu s e ve n if, as

Arm st ro ng as se rts

, th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t m is ap pl ie d th e Zi n g e r ru le in hi s

cas e, he is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f un le ss he can al so de m on st r a t e t h a t s uc h

m is ap pl ic at io n is co nt rary to

, or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d

fed eral law.

Fu rth erm or e, Arm st ro ng 's ev id e n c e do es no t ne ces sa ril y su pp or t hi s

co nc lu si on

. The fact th at no Ark an sa s ap pe ll at e co ur t ha s rev ers ed on a Zin ge r is su e
do es no t co m

pe l th e co nc lu si on th at th e Zin ge r ru le ha s b e c om e a bl an ke t

ex cl us io na ry ru le

. Man y ot he r ex pl an at io ns are pl au si bl e: th at no cri m in al de fen da nt

ha s y et pr es en te d su ffi ci en t pr oo f un de r Zin ge r, th at co ur ts ha ve ad m it te d ev id en ce

at th e tri al le ve l in cas es whe re th ere was no ap pe al

, or th at fo r an y ot he r pr oc ed ur al

or ta ct ic al reas on an ap pe al of a tri al -le ve l Zin ge r de ci si on di d no t reac h an ap pe ll at e

co ur t o n t he m eri ts of t he Zin ge r is su e.

Fi na ll y , ev en if Arm st ro ng is co rrec t th at Zin ge r ha s be en m is ap pl ie d in ot he r

cas es , th is fact st il l do es no t en ti tl e hi m to rel ie f. The cri ti cal in qu iry un de r AEDPA

is no t whe th er Ark an sa s co ur ts ha ve m is ap pl ie d th e Zin ge r ru le in ge ne ral in cri m in al

cas es , bu t rat he r, whe th er th ei r ap pl ic at io n of th e ru le in Arm st ro ng 's cas e was

co nt rary to

, or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral la w. Here,

it was n ot

.

-8

-III.

Arm st ro ng 's ot he r two arg um en ts are no t wit hi n th e sc op e of th e COA fo r th is

cas e. The se arg um en ts are fir st

, whe th er Ark an sa s co ur ts ab rid ge d Arm st ro ng 's rig ht

to ha ve a jury de ci de al l th e fact s ne ces sa ry to co nv ic t, an d se co nd

, whe th er Ark an sa s

co ur ts un co ns ti tu ti on al ly red uc ed th e le ve l of pr oo f ne ces sa ry fo r th e pr os ecu ti on to

ob ta in a co nv ic ti on

.

AEDPA req ui res th e is su an ce of a COA be fo re a co ur t of ap pe al s m ay en te rta in

an ap pe al fro m a ha be as pr oc eed in g ari si ng ou t of st at e co ur t. 28 U.S.C. §

22 53 (c)( 1) (A); Mi ll er-El v. Co ck rel l, 53 7 U.S. 32 2, 33 5– 36 (2 00 3)

. Mi ll er-El m ak es
cl ear th at th e is su an ce of a COA is a juri sd ic ti on al pr ereq ui si te fo r an ap pe al fro m th e
de ni al of a ha be as pe ti ti on

. 53 7 U.S. at 33 6 ("[ U] nt il a COA ha s be en is su ed fed eral

co ur ts of ap pe al s l a c k juri sd ic ti on to ru le on th e m eri ts of ap pe al s fro m ha be as

pe ti ti on s" ). Howev er, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s rece nt ly ad dr es se d th e req ui rem en ts of

28 U.S.C. § 22 53 (c)( 3) an d cl ari fie d t h a t

, w h il e a COA is juri sd ic ti on al

, th e

req ui rem en t t o s pe ci fy

th e co ns ti tu ti on al is su es ap pe al ed do es no t co nt ai n th e sa m e juri sd ic ti on al f

o r c e

. G o n z al ez v. Tha le r, 13 2 S. Ct . 6 41 , 6 49 (2 01 2)

. The Co ur t in

Gon zal ez al so no te d th at co ur ts of ap pe al s ro ut in el y am en d COA's or rem an d fo r

sp eci fic at io n of is su es . Id . at 6 51 n.7

. Mi ll er-El an d Gon zal ez le av e un di st ur be d a

pr io r en ba nc ru li ng of ou r ci rcu it in whi ch we he ld th at a pa ne l ha s th e "t he rig ht

. . .
to ex erci se it s di sc ret io n t o c o n s i de r su a sp on te is su es be y on d th os e sp eci fie d in a

cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y , whe th er th e cert ifi cat e was is su ed by a di st ric t co ur t or by

an ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l o f th is co ur t." Uni te d St at es v. Mo rg an , 24 4 F .3d 67 4, 6 75
(8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). See a ls o Do dd v. Un it ed Sta te s, 6 14 F.3d 51 2, 51 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(n ot in g th at a pa ne l of th e co ur t of ap pe al s m ay co ns id er is su es be y on d th e sc op e of

a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y in "ap pr op r i a t e ci rcu m st an ces " bu t de cl in in g to do so (q uo ti ng San d e r s v

. Nor ris

, 52 9 F.3 d 78 7, 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ))); The us v. Uni te d

St at es , 61 1 F.3 d 44 1, 44 9 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ex pa nd in g a cert ifi cat e of

-9

-ap pe al ab il it y ). W e ha ve in di cat ed th at th is di sc ret io n sh ou ld be ex erci se d "ca refu ll y "

an d th at we wil l "co ns id er is su es ou ts id e th e sc op e of th e cert ifi cat e

. . . whe n it is in

th e in te res t o f jus ti ce." W hi te v. Di ng le , 61 6 F .3d 84 4, 8 47 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) . In t hi s

cas e, we de cl in e to e x p a n d th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y or co ns id er is su es no t

ad dr es se d i n t he cert ifi cat e.

In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t cert ifi ed th e fo ll owi ng is su e fo r ap pe al : "Whet he r

th e tri al co ur t's ap pl ic at io n of the ru le in Zin ge r v. Arkan sa s, 8 52 S.W .2d 32 0 (Ark.

19 93 ), un co ns ti tu ti on al ly de pr iv ed pe ti ti on er of a m ean in gf ul op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t

a co m pl et e d e f e ns e as gu aran te ed by th e Si xt h an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts ? "

Arm st ro ng v. Hob bs

, No. 09 -0 01 00 BSM (E.D. Ark

. Dec. 30

, 20 10 ) (o rd er is su in g

cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y ). W e a d d r es se d th is qu es ti on an d an swe red it in th e

ne ga ti ve ab ov e.

IV.

In su m , we co nc lu de th at th e Ark an sa s co ur t's de ci si on to ex cl ud e ev id en ce th at

th e W al le r si st ers m ig ht ha ve co m m it te d th e m

ur de r of Das hu nd a Arm st ro ng was no t

co nt rary t o, or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of , c le arl y es ta bl is he d fed eral la w. The

di st ric t co ur t th eref

or e di d no t err in de nyin g ha be as rel ie f to Mr. Arm st ro ng , an d we

affi rm it s ju dg m en t.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-