NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0202n.06 Nos. 09-1354, 09-1609 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
THOMAS C. DI TTRI CH, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lle e Cr os s- Ap pe lla nt,
v. JEF F REYWOO DS, Respondent-Appe llant Cross

- A p p e lle e. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI ST R I CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : SU HRHE I

NR I CH , CO L E, and

CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. COOK, Circuit J udg e. Thomas Dittrich petitioned for a writ of habea s corpus, c halleng ing his state

- c o u rt c o n v ic ti o n f o r c r im in a l s e xu a l c o n d

u c t o n tw o g r o u n d s : in e f f e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e of counsel a

nd violation o f his Six th Amendment rig ht of confr ontation. The district court conditionally

g rante d the writ based upon the first claim but reje cted the se cond. B oth parties now
a pp e a l. We re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f h a be a s.
I.
Th e c ha rg e s a g a ins t D ittri c h a

ro se fr om a

n a lle g e d thre e -m on th r e lati on sh ip w ithhis da ug hte r’ s th ir

te e n- y e ar- old

c la ssm a te (“ Com

pla ina nt” ) d ur ingth e fa ll o f 2 00 2. Ac c or din g to Complainant, a ft er b ef

ri ending Dittrich’s da

ug hter at school, she spent a lot of time at Dittrich’ s home and f

reque ntly slept over. One night whil e she was lying on the living room c ouch, DittrichNos. 09-1354, 09-1609

Dittrich v. W

oods

- 2 - approa ched he r and kissed he r. The ne x t d ay , Dittrich took Complainant to his bedroom a nd perf ormed ora l sex on her, w hich he did sever al times during the next few months. The two also had intercour se six or seve n times over t h i s p er iod. On all but one instance , Complainant’s sexual encounte rs with Dittrich occ urred i n h i s h o me. Thoug h no third parties e ver w itnessed Dittrich’s intimacy with Compl ainant, she w rote notes about Dittrich to two of her c lassmates; the prose cution introduced these notes into evidenc e. Additionally , Complainant confesse d her f eeling s for Dittrich to h e r o lde r s ist e r, wh o in

tur n to ld t he ir pa re nts . Co mpl a ina

nt’ s p are nts int e rv e ne d, e nd inghe r a ff a ir with Dittrich.
Dittrich’s wife and daughte rs corroborated many of Complainant’s ac cusations. Acc ording to them, Dittrich’s conduc t with Co mp la ina

nt was “immediate ly

suspicious.” People v . Dittrich , No. 255536, 2005 WL 2895738, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2005) ( per c uriam). Dittrich sometimes disappea red w ith Com plainant for prolong ed periods. They once found him cuddling with her on the c ou c h. To g e ther t he tw o dr ank a lc oh ol, loo ke d at po rn og ra ph y , a nd dr e w l e wd

pic tur e s. Dittrich’s wife claimed that whe n she conf ronted him about his relationship wit h Complainant, he eventua lly

admitted it. She a lso c onfirmed Complainant’s descr iption of a unique mark on Dittrich’s penis and stated that some of her sex t oy s—which matche d the desc ription of items Compl ainant repor ted re ceivingfrom Dittrich

— h ad vanishe d. Finally , Dittrich’s family members r ecounte d
se ve ra l ane c do te s a

bo ut h is h ist or

y of ph y sic a lly

a bu sin g the m.Nos. 09-1354, 09-1609

Dittrich v. W

oods

Mic hig an’ s r a

pe sh ie ld s tatut e , M ic h. Comp. L aws § 750 .5 20 j, g e ne ra lly

pr oh ibi ts a 1 defe ndant’s admission of evide nce a bout a comp la in a

nt’s past sexual conduct with others. Ye t “once the prosec ution intr o d u ce [ s ] m edica l evidence to establish penetration, evidence of alter native source s of pene tration bec [om es] highly rele vant to materia l issues in disput e.” People v . Haley , 395 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). I n s u ch instance s, the trial cour t may hold an in came ra hear ing to de termine whe ther to admit evidenc e of a complainant’s pr ior sexual conduct. People v

. - 3 - I n a d d it io n

to D it tric h ’ s f amily , various unaf

filiated par

ties offe red sug g estive, circ umstantial testimo n y reg ardingDittrich and Complainant. For example, the two classmates to whom Complainant disclosed her r elationship test i fi ed t h at Dittrich threatened to kill them if they ever repe ated wha

t t h ey had hea rd. The se cre tary

at Complainant’s school stated that Dittrich onc e phoned Complainant there , and that t h e t wo car ried on a secr etive, fifte en-minute c onversation, despite the sec reta

ry ’s re quests that Complainant hang up. Some dispute also surfac ed d u ri n g t ri al over the Complainant’s past sexual conduct. The parties stipulated that in De cembe r 2002, Complainant went to the hospital, told a doctor about her relationship wit h Dittrich, and re ceive d a pelvic e x amination. Dr
. Sabbath, the examining g y ne c olo g ist , te sti fi e d that Com pla ina nt’ s hy me n wa s ru

ptu re d, c on sis te nt w ithse xua l in te rc ours e or the inser

tion of items, such as a tampon or multiple finge rs, into the vag ina. She also testified that such tea rs could occur natura lly
. Dittrich then moved to re call Complainant and e x amine her about he r s e xua l hi sto ry ; c ouns e l st a te d th a t it re c e ive d “ inf or matio n” tha

t Co mpl a ina

nt w a s o nc e se xua lly inv olv e d w itha

c la ssm a te , a

nd tha t this co nta c t cou ld be the so ur c e of Com pla ina nt’ s hy me na l te ars . Prior to gr anting an in c amer a hear ing, the court, rely ing on Michig an’s r ape shie ld law, re quired that Dittrich make an offe r of proof as to the proposed e vidence
. Be cause Dittrich could make no such 1Nos. 09-1354, 09-1609

Dittrich v. W

oods

Ha c k e tt , 3 6 5 N. W
. 2 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 5 (M i ch
. 1 9 8 4 ). Bu t b ef o re t h e co u rt o rd er s an i nc a m e r a h e ar i n g, “ [t]he de fe nd ant is ob lig a te d ini tia lly to m a ke an o ff e r o f p ro of

a s to the pr op os e d e vid e nc e and to demonstrate its re levanc e to the purpose for whic h it is sought to be admitted.” Id. - 4 - showing , the cour

t denied the motion but of fer ed to rec onsider the issue if D ittrich later pr oduced any proof.
At the close of

trial, the jury

returned a guilty

verdic t on seven c ounts of criminal sexual
c on du c t. T he c ourt

se nte nc e d D ittri c h to 95 –1 80 mon ths ’ i mpr iso nme nt. Following his conviction, Dittrich filed a dire ct appe al, asser ting thre e g rounds for r elief: (1 ) d e fe ns e c ouns e l, b y

fa ili ngto o bje c t to Di ttr ic h’ s f a mil y ’s te sti mony a

bo ut his his tor

y of do me sti c violen ce, provided ineff

ective a ssistance; (2) the cour t, by denying D ittrich’s motion to ex amine Complainant about her se x ual history , violated his rig ht to confront his ac cuser ; and (3) the court imp ro pe rl y

a dmi tte d Co mpl a ina

nt’ s p ri or c on sis te nt s tate me nts. Th e Mic hig an Co ur t of Ap pe a ls aff irmed the c onviction, ruling that (1) thoug h defe nse counse l’s failure to object t o the “pr ior bad acts” testimony

was not sound trial strate g y , abundant suppleme ntal evidenc e made the er ror ha rm le ss; (2 ) D ittri c h p ro vid e d in a de qu a te pr oo f a bo ut C omp la ina

nt’ s p a st s e xua l a c tiv iti e s to surmount Michiga

n’s ra pe shield law; a

nd (3) the trial court prope rly admitted Complainant’s prior consistent statements bec ause they rebutted D ittrich’s sug g estions that she rec ently fabr icated pa

rt of her story
. Dittrich , 2005 WL 2895738, at *2–4

. Di ttr ic h th e n a pp lie d to the Mic hig an Su pr e me Court for leave to appe al, ra ising the same three claims, but the court de nied re lief. People v. Dittrich , 712 N.W.2d 477 (Mich. 2006).Nos. 09-1354, 09-1609

Dittrich v. W

oods

A state-c ourt adjudication is contra ry to clea rly established federa l law if the c ourt arr ives 2 a t a c o n c l u s i o no p p o s i t e t o t h a to f t h e S u p r e m e C o u rto na

qu e s t i o no f

l aw o r d e c i d e s a

c a se differ ently

on a set of materia lly indisti ng uishable fa cts. W illiams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 412–13 (2000). A state cour

t unrea sonably

applies S u p re m e C ourt prec edent if the court identifies the correc t g overningleg al principle but unre asonably applies that principle to the f acts of the case . W igg ins v . S

mi th , 539 U.S. 510, 520 (2003). - 5 - I n J uly 2007, Dittrich petitioned for a writ of habea s corpus, alleg ing both i n ef fe cti ve
a ssi sta nc e of c ouns e l and a vio latio n of his c on fr on tatio n ri g ht. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d th e wr it. I t he ld that alth ou g h an y purp or te d er ro r in the state c ourt ’s a

pp lic a tio n of t

he Mic hig an r a

pe sh ie ld law wa s harmless, Dittrich re ceiv ed ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. Dittrich v. W oods , 6 02 F. Supp. 2d 802, 806–09 (E.D. Mich. 2 0 0 9 ). Fo l lowing the district court’s de cision, the state now
a pp e a ls the c ourt ’s ha

be a s g ra nt; Di ttr ic h c ro ss- a

pp e a ls i ts d e nia l of

his se c on d c la im.
II.
“In revie winga district cour t’s decision to g rant o r d eny habea s relief

, this Court reviews q u es t i o ns of fa ct under

a ‘c lear ly err oneous’ standa

rd and que stions of law de novo .” J o hnson v. Sh e rry , 586 F.3d 439, 443 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Under the Anti terror ism and Effe ctive De a th Pe n a lt y A ct (“ AEDPA”) , fede ral c ourts may g rant ha beas r elief if the state cour t’s adjudication of the c laim r esulted in a decision contra ry to, or unrea sonably applying, c lear ly established fe dera l law, as deter

mined by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) . Yet AED PA’s “hig hly defe rential 2 standard . . . de mands that state-c ourt dec isions be giv en t h e b en efit of the doubt.” W oodford v. Vi sc iot ti , 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (pe r cur iam) (inter nal quotation marks and c itation omit ted). “ [A]Nos. 09-1354, 09-1609

Dittrich v. W

oods

As a pre liminary matter, Dittrich argues that in deciding his ineffe ctive-a ssistance c laim, the 3 Mic hig an a

pp e llate c ourt

“ fa ile d t o app ly th e c or

re c t le g a l st and ard ,” and

that it s d e te rm inatio n is thus “not entitled to AEDPA defe renc e.” Alternatively , he st ates, the court’s “err or . . . may also be s e [ e ] na s b e i n g ‘ c o n t r ar

y t o ’ g o v e r

n i n g S u p r e m e C o u rtp r e c e d e n t , a s e x e m p l i f i e d b y Strickland .” He c it e s n o a

u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o rth i s p o s i t i o n , w h i c h , i nan y e v e n t , t h e c o u rt ’ s o p i n i o nb e l ie s. Although the court be g an its a naly sis by stating that, “[a]s [Dittrich] failed to r aise this issue in the trial court .
. . , our revie w is limited to plain err or,” it immediately proce eded to r ecite a

nd apply the familiar Strickland

test. Dittrich , 2005 WL 2895738, at *2. Contrary to Dittrich’s alleg ation, the court did not apply

the incorr ect leg al standar d, and its decision merits AEDPA de fer ence . - 6 - fede ral habeas court may not issue the writ simply beca use that cour

t concludes in its independe nt judgme nt that the state-c ourt dec ision applied [a Supreme Court case ] i ncorr ectly .” Price v . Vincent , 538 U.S. 634, 641 (2003) (a lterations in ori gi n al) (inter nal quotation marks and c itation omit ted).

“ Ra the r, it is the ha

be a s app lic ant’ s bur de n to showthat th e state c ourt a pp lie d [th a t c a se ] to the fa c ts of his case in an objectively unrea sonable manne r.” W oo dfo rd , 537 U.S. at 25.
A. Dittrich first alleg es that his trial counsel pr ovided inef fec tive assistance for failing to object to his family ’s testimony

about his history of domestic violence. T o prove ine f

fec tive assistance of counsel, a

petitioner must demonstrate, c onsidering all of t h e ci rc u mstances, “ that counsel’s perf ormanc e wa s deficie nt,” and “ that the defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d the def ense.” S trickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 3
Neither party contests the Michig an Court of A p p e a ls ’ s r u li n g th a t D it trich’s counse l’s failure to object to the dom estic-violenc e evidence was def icient. See D ittri ch , 2005 WL 2895738, at *3Nos. 09-1354, 09-1609

Dittrich v. W

oods

To put the prejudice question into perspec tive, Sc ho e nb e rg e r v . R us se ll , 2 90 F .3 d 8 31 (6 th 4 Cir. 2002), p ro v es h el pful. I n Schoenbe rger , a n O hio jur

y c on vic te d th e de fe nd ant o f s e xua lly assaulting his two te enag e stepda ug hters despite a

n absenc e of e y ewitnesses or phy sical evide nce. I ns te a d, the c a se c e ntered on the te sti mony of the de fe nd ant’ s st e pd a

ug hte rs . A t tr ia l, d e fe ns e - 7 - (“G iven the tende ncy

of the jury to g ive ex cessive w eig ht to such improper c hara cter evidenc e, we cannot presume that this [failure to obje ct] wa s sound trial strateg y .”). W e there fore revie w only

the court’s deter

mination that the defic ient perf ormanc e did not prejudice Dittrich’s defe nse. Counsel’s defic ient perf

ormanc e pre

judices a defenda

nt when there is “a rea sonable probability that, absent the
err ors, the fa ctfinder

would have ha d a re asonable doubt respec ting guilt.” S trickland , 466 U.S. at 695. “More over, a ver dict or conc lusion only weakly supported by

the re cord is more likely

to have been a f fec ted by err ors than one w ith overwhe lming re cord suppor t.” Id . at 696.
I n holding that Dittrich’s counsel’s err or did not prejudice Dittrich’s defe nse, the Michig an Court of Appea ls neither contr adicte d n o r u n rea sonably applied S

trickland . As the g overnme nt pr e sse s, the e vid e nc e a g a ins t Dittri c h is ove rwhe lmi ng . Al tho ug h Comp la ina nt wa s the on ly

wi tne ss to t he a lle g e d s e xua l a ssa

ult s, nume ro us oth e r p art ie s— inc lud ingDi ttr ic h’ s w if e and da ug hte rs , Complaina n t’ s c la s s ma te s , th e s c h o o l secr etar y , and the doc tor who examined Complainant—corrobor ated he r testimony . I n his brief, Dittrich attempts to weaken the prosec ution’s case by

attackingeac h piece of evide nce individually . I n this inst ance , howeve r, the whole is g reater than its par ts; taken togethe r , the evidentiary rec ord is particula rly inculpating . And, as the g overnme nt points out, the central fa ctor—the Complainant’s c redibility —is not “neg ated by the evidenc e of domestic violence.” Even though Dittrich raises va lid concer ns about the evide nce 4Nos. 09-1354, 09-1609

Dittrich v. W

oods

counsel a llowed the def

endant’ s wife to testify about his history of domestic violence ; the defe ndant us e d thi s is su e to w a g e an in e ff e c tiv e -a ssi sta

nc e c ha lle ng e on

a pp e a l. A s in

the ins tant c a se , th e state appellate court he ld that although the domestic-violence t es t i m o n y was impermissible, it did not prejudice the def

endant. In this court’s re view of the defe ndant’s eve ntual habea s petition, we too de nie d th e c la im: Gi ve n th e str ing e nt s tand ard s o f A ED PA a nd our g e ne ra l re luc tanc e to s e c on d- g ue ss s t at e[-]court evidentiary

ruling s in a habe as proc eeding , we c annot say that the a dmi ssi on

of thi s e vid e nc e vio late d pe tit ion e r’ s du e pr oc e ss r ig hts . We a g re e wi th the state c ourt’s dete rmination that no prejudice appea rs t o have resulted fr om [ the defe ndant’s wife ’s] testim ony , and that any prejudice which may have r esulted fr om the evidenc e of pe titioner’s assault on his wife was m inimal in light of the fac t that t h e p r i m ar

y i s s u e a tt r i a l w a s t h e v i c t i m ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y. Id
. a t 83 6. Th e pa

ne l’ s lo g ic a

pp lie s e qu a lly

in D ittri c h’ s c a se . T o th e e xten t th a t Schoenbe rger may se rv e a s a

me a suri ngsti c k, it s up po rt s th e g ov e rnme nt ’s posit ion sin c e (1 ) D ittri c h’ s c a se a lso depende d upon the cre dibilit y of the victim, a nd (2) the e vidence ag ainst Dittrich was more extensive tha n th a t agai ns t Sc ho e nb e rg e r, su g g e sti ngthat th e do me sti c -v iol e nc e te sti mony ha d e ve n le ss pr e jud ic ia l po te nti a l. - 8 - a g a ins t hi m, h e fa ils to dem on st rat e tha t it wa s ob je c tiv e ly un r e as on ab le fo r t

he state c ourt

to conclude that a jury

would have c onvicted him without the illi cit testimony
. B.
As a lte rn a te g ro un ds fo r h a be a s re lie f, Di ttr ic h c la ims that the tr ia l c ourt vio late d his Sixth Am e ndme nt r ig ht of c on fr on tatio n. W e re vie w a ha be a s p e tit ion e r’ s c la im o f C on fr on tatio n Cl a us e
v io lati o n s f

o r h ar ml e s s e r r o r. Del aw ar

e v . V an Ar sd all , 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986). The corr ect inquiry “is whethe r the e rror

‘had s u b s t an t i al and injurious ef fec t or influence in determining the jury ’s ver dict.’” Br

echt v . Abrahamson , 5 0 7 U. S
. 6 1 9 , 6 3 7 (1 9 9 3 ) ( q u o t i n g Kotteakos v . United S tates , 3 28 U. S. 75 0, 77 6 (1 94 6) ). An e vid e nti ary e xclu sio n that “ re nd e re d [a ] pe tit ion e r’ s tr ia l soNos. 09-1354, 09-1609

Dittrich v. W

oods

Dittrich also ar g ues that the trial c ourt’s use o f t h e ra p e s hield law pre vented him from 5 a de qu a te ly

te sti ngCom

pla ina nt’ s c re dib ili ty . T his argume nt l a c ks me ri t: No matte r h owc e ntr a l an a c c us e r’ s c re dib ili ty is t o a case —i nd eed , h e r c re dib ili ty will almost alway s be the corne rstone of a rape or sexual assault case, e ven if ther e is p hy sic a l e vid e nc e —th e Con sti tut ion do e s n ot re qu irethat a defe ndant be g iven the opportunity

to wag e a g ener al attac k on cre dibilit y by pointing to individual instance s of past conduct.
. . . [T] he S ix th Amendment only compels cross-examination if that examination aims t o reve al the motive, bias or pr ejudice of a witness/ac cuser . Boggs v. Collins , 226 F.3d 728, 740 ( 6th Cir. 2000). - 9 - fundame ntally

unfair a s to constitute a denial of fede ral constitut ional rig hts” may war rant ha beas relief
. Lewis v . W ilkinson , 307 F .3d 413, 420 (6th Cir . 2002) (inter nal quotation marks and c itation omi tte d) . Co nv e rs e ly

, a c ourt ’s e xclu sio n o f e vid e nc e wi th l imi ted e xcu lpator y va lue is g e ne ra lly harmless. See, e .g. , Un ite d S tates v . R ay bo rn , 491 F .3d 513, 518 (6th Cir. 2007).
Acc ording to Dittrich, the trial cour t, in denying his motion to ex amine Complainant about her se x ual h i s t o ry

, preve nted him from re futing Dr . Sabbath’s testimony
. Y et Dr. Sabbath’s 5 statements inculpated D ittrich only minimally , if at all. As she explained, Complainant’s hy menal rupture a ccor ded with sexual intercourse or the i nsertion of other

items into t he vag ina. Ad dit ion a lly , s he no te d, hy me na l te ari ng may oc c ur natur a lly
. He r te sti mony thu s d id n ot d ir e c tly incriminate Dittrich, but mer ely sug g ested that sexua l c ontact with Dittrich wa s one of many po ssi ble
e xplanat io ns for

Co mp lai nan t’ s h y

men al t ears . I n l ight of D r. S abb ath ’s r ela ti vel y neu tr a l c omm e nts , the exculpatory

potential of Dittrich’s inquiries into the Complainant’s sexual history would haveNos. 09-1354, 09-1609

Dittrich v. W

oods

- 10 - been e qually

slight. The c ourt’s dec ision to ex clude the e vidence thus did not have a “ substantial and injurious ef

fec t” on the jury ’s ver dict. See B r echt , 507 U.S. at 637.
III
. W e ther efor e re verse the district court’s g rant of ha b ea s relief on Dittrich’s inef fec tivea ssi sta nc e c la im a

nd a f fi rm its re je c tio n o f h is r ig ht- to- c on fr on tatio n c la im.