Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31174
D AV E O N M C C U L L O U G H , P eti ti on er–A p p ell a n t v. B U R L C A IN , W A R D E N , L O U IS IA N AS T A T E P E N IT E N T IA R Y , R espon den t–A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 1: 05- c v- 00674
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d B E N AV ID E S an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * D a v e o n M c C u llo u g h , pro se , a p p e a l s t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is peti t i on f

or a w ri tof

ha beas corpu s. AL ou i si an a j u ry con vi ct ed M cC u l l ou gh of second d egree m u rder and sentenced h i m t o l i fe w i t h ou t t h e possibi l i t y of parol e. M cC u l l ou gh argu es t h at t h e st ate c ou rti n f ri n ged hi s ri gh t t o du e process w h en i t exclu d ed stat e m en ts pro vid ed byh i s co-pe rp etra tors th a t did n ot i m p l i ca te h im inth e m u rd e r, i n v iola tion of Cham be rs v . Mi s s i s s i ppi , 410 U
. S. 284, 302 (1 9 7 3 ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 11, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-31174 Document: 00511048961 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 08- 31174

2 U nd er the An t i t er r or i sm and E f fec t ive D eat h P enal t y Actof 1996 (“A E D P A”), w e m a yn o tg r a n ta w r it o f h a b e a s co r p u s w ith re s p e c t t o acla im deci ded on the m eri t s i n st ate c ou rtun l ess t h e st ate c ou rt ’ s j u dg m en t“ resul t ed in ad e cis io n th a t w a s c o n tra ryto, orin v o lve da n u n re a so n a b le a p p li ca tion of,
c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d Fe de r allaw , a s de t e r m i ne d b y t he Supr e m e Cour to f t he U n i t ed S t ates. ” 2 8 U
. S
. C § 2254 ( d)( 1)
. B ecau se M cC u l l ou gh ha s not de m o ns t r at e d t hat t he Loui s i anac o ur tunr e as o nab l y ap pl i e d Ch am bers t o t he fac t s o f hi s c as e , w e a f

f i r m t he de ni alo f

hi s pe t i t i o n. I . F ACT UAL AND PROC EDURAL HI S TORY The de t ail s of

t he b r ut alm ur de rg ivi ng r i s e t o t hi s c as e , i n whi c h ag r o up o f y o u n gm e n b lu d g e o n e dto d e a th a n e ig h ty -tw o y e a ro ldw o m a n , a r e th o r o u g h ly
r e c o unt e d i n t he Loui s i anaThi r d Ci r c ui tCour to f Appe al s’ s op i n i o n a f f i r m i ng M c C u llo u g h ’ s c o n v ic tio n o n d ir e c t r e v ie w . See St at ev. Mc C ul lough , 774 So. 2d 110 5, 110 8–1 2 (L a. C t
. A pp . 200 0)
. A tM cC u l l ou gh ’ s t ri al , t h e State i n t rodu ced t est i m o n y f

rom Jerry Joseph an d W i l l i am W an sl ey, both of w h om i m pl i cat ed M c C u ll o u g h in th e m u r d e r . N o o t h e rS t a t e w it n e s s e s te s t if ie dto M c C u ll o u g h ’s i nvo lve m e nt , a nd t he St at e di d no ti nt r o duc e a ny phy s i c ale vi de nc e t yi ng M cC u l l ou gh t o t h e cr i m e. Joseph w as conn ect ed t o t h e m u rder by F redri ck G radl ey, w h o confessed h i s i n vol vem en tt o pol i ce and i m pl i cat ed fou r o t h ers, bu tdi d n otm en t i on M cC u l l ou gh ’ s i n vo lv e m en t. U p on h i s ar rest, Jo sep h pr ov i d ed a sta tem en t t o p o lic e th a t in c u lp a te d fo u r o th e r s , in c lu d in g M c C u llo u g h
. J o s e p h s u b s e q u e n tly t est i f i ed f or t h e State i n M cC u l l ou g h ’ s t ri alpu rsuan tt o a favorab l e pl ea a g r e e m e n t , a n dp r o v id e dth e o n lyfi r s t -h a n da c c o u n to f M c C u ll o u g h ’s i n vo lve m en t. T h e Sta te al so i n t rodu ced t h e st atem en tof W an sl ey, w h o bri ef

l y sha red
a j ai lc e l lw i t h M c Cul l o ugh
. W ans l e y t e s t i f i e d t hatw he n he a s ke d whether M c Cul l o ugh w as e nt i t l e d t o at r i als e pa r at e f r o m hi s c o - pe r pe t r at o rs, Case: 08-31174 Document: 00511048961 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 08- 31174

The Louisiana Court of Appeal s lim it edi ts con siderationto Gradley’s, Bush’ s, an d 1 Howard’sst ate ments , an d theyareth e onlyst ate me ntscurrentlyb ef ore u s. 3 M c C u llo u g h s ta te dth a t h e b e lie v e dh e co u ld“b e a t t h e ch a r g e ,” b u t a d m itt e dh is i n vol vem en ti n w h at he described a s a ga n g i n i t i ati on att ack. Th e State di d n ot pr o m i s e W ans l e y anyl e ni e nc y f o rhi s t e s t i m o ny, a nd W ans l e y t e s t i f i e d t hathe k n e w n o th in go f th e m u r d e rb e fo r e th is co n v e r s a tio n w ith M c C u llo u g h
. M c Cul l o ugh pr o c l ai m e d hi s i nno c e nc e , a s s e r t e d a n a l ibide fe ns e , a nd
ac c us e d J o s e ph a nd W ans l e y o f l yi ng. To b ol st e rhi s a r gum e nt s , M c Cul l o ugh , th r o u g h p r e -tr ia l m o t i o ns i n l i m i ne , sough tt o i n t rodu ce t h e out- of

- court st atem en t s of G radl ey, F redri ck B u sh, C edri c H ow ard, an d tw o ot h ers cha rged
w i th the m u rd er a ft er a n ti ci p a ti n g th a t t h ese de cl a ra n ts w ou l dass ert th e F i ft h A m endm entpr ivil egeaga i n st self-i n crim i n a ti on i f ca l l ed as w i tn ess es. G r adl ey, 1 B u sh, an d H ow ard h a d a llp rovi ded st atem en t s t o pol i ce, non e of w h i ch im p lic a te dM c C u llo u g h in th e cr im e . G r ad l e y’ s s t at e m e ntt o de t e c t ive s i nc ul pa t e d hi m s e l f a nd f o uro t he r s , a nd
n otonl y l ed t o t h e i ssuan ce of arres tw arran t s f

or t h ose he n am ed, bu tw as al so ad m i t t ed i n t o evi den ce athi s t ri al , w h i ch resul t ed i n a convi ct i on f or f i rstdegree
m u r d e ra n das e n te n c e o f d e a th
. H o w a r d , h o w e v e r , d e n ie dh is in v o lv e m e n t in t h e m u rder, a n d i n st ead tol d pol i ce that he h ad overhea rd severalot h ers di scuss t h ei r pl an s t o com m it th e cr i m e bef ore itocc u rred. Likew i se, B u sh, w h om M c Cul l o ugh de s c r ibe d as hi s “ hal f

- br o t he r , ” ga ve t w o s t at e m e nt s — o ne sw orn— t h at at t em pted t o d ef l ectatt en t i on f

rom hi s i n vol vem en t
. H e report ed t h at Joseph a n d on e ot h er i n di vi du alconfessed t h ei r i n vol vem en taf t er t h e fact an d threa te n e d to fals el y i m pl i cat e ot h ers i f t h e pol i ce c au gh tt h em . N on e of th ese thre e m en ti on ed M cC u l l ou gh at an y p oin t. The s t at e co ur tdef

e r r e d r ul i ng o n t he m o t i o ns unt i lt r i al , a tw hi c h po i nt i tde ni e d a l lf

ive a f t e rc o m m e nt i ng t hati tw o ul d b e unfai rt o i nt r o duc e t he
s t at e m e nt s b e c aus e t he St at e di d notha ve t he c hanc e t o c r o s s - e xa m i ne t he Case: 08-31174 Document: 00511048961 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 08- 31174

4 decl aran t s. M cC u l l ou gh t h en cal l ed G radl ey, B u sh, an d H ow ard as w i t n esses , an d allt h ree i m m ed iat el y assert ed thei r Fi f t h A m en dm en tri gh t s and ref u sed t o t e s t i f y. M c Cul l o ugh ’ s co uns e lm ad e no at t e m ptt o c o m pe lt he i rt e s t i m o ny, b ut i n st ead argu ed, t o no av ai l , f or t h e i n t rodu ct i on of t h e d e cla ra n t s’pri or st atem en t s t o pol i ce. A fte rh is co n v ic tio n , M c C u llo u gh arg u ed to th e L o u is ia n a C o u r t o f A p p e a ls t h at the t ri alcou rterroneou sl y den i ed h i s m o t i o ns i n l i m i ne . T h e sta te ap p ell a te court recogni zed that un der Ch am bers , a d efen d a n t’ s f u n d a m en tal ri gh t t o pre se ntw i t nes se s i n hi s ow n def ens e m ay r equi r e ac our tt o a dm i thear sa y te s tim o n yg iv e n “c o n s id e r a b le a s s u r a n c e o f [th e s ta te m e n ts ’] r e lia b ility .” Mc C ul lough , 774 So. 2d at1124 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal)
. I thel d, how eve r , t hat be c aus e M c Cul l o ugh ha d fail e d t o e s t ab l i s h t he r e l i ab i l i t y o f t he s t at e m e nt s he
s o u g h t to a d m it, th e t r ia l co u r t d idn o t e r rw h e n it e x c lu d e dth e m . Id
. at1125. S u bseque nt l y, t he Lo ui s i anaSupr e m e Cour tde ni e d M c Cul l o ugh ’ s pe t i t i o n f or s ta te p o s t-c o n v ic tio n re lie f. SeeSt at ev. Mc C ul lough , 8 0 6 S o . 2 d6 6 9 (L a . 2 0 0 2 ). M cC u l l ou gh t h en f

i l ed a peti t i on f

or federal h abea s rel i ef i n t h e W est ern D is tr ic t o f L o u is ia n a , a s s e r tin g , in tera lia , t hatt he s t at e t ri a lco urtj udge vi ol ated his ri gh tt o pu t f ort h a defense an d theref ore denied hi m du e process of l aw un der Ch am bers
. Th e m agis t rat e j u dg e rec om m en ded t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt gran tM cC u l l ou gh ha beas rel i ef af t er c on cl u di n g t h at al lt h ree excl u ded st atem en t s had suf

f i ci en ti n di ci a of

rel i abil i t y t o m eett h e Ch am bers st an da rd and t ended t o suppor t M c C ul l ough’ s as se r t ed i nnoce nce . The m agi st r at e j udge al s o c o nc l ude d t hatM c Cul l o ugh ’ s s t at e t r i alcou r tj udg e e r r e d b e c aus e t he prosecutor ’ s l ack of

a b il it y t o cr oss- exam i n e w i t n esses w as “ n ota val i d reason fo re x c l u d i n gt h e h e a r s a ys t a t e m e n t s ,” a n dt h a tt h e s t a t e t r i a lc o u r tju d g e s h o u ld hav e q ue s t i o ne d t he w i t nesses ’a s s e r t i o n o f pr ivil e ge a nd i nquir e d i nt o t he rel i abili t y of

t h e prof

fered st atem en t s. Case: 08-31174 Document: 00511048961 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 08- 31174

M c Cullough’s petition also asserteda Brad y violation and a clai m fo r inef fec tive 2 assistance of counsel . The district court denied his petition o n tho s e gr ou nds a s well , an d Mc C ullou ghf

ailedto secureaC OA a s to thos e is su es .

5 I ni t i al l y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta do pt e d t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e ’ s r e po r ta nd
recom m e nda t i o n i n i t s e nt i r e t y, a nd g r ant e d M c Cul l o ughac o ndi t i o nalw r i tof hab e as co r pus . Af

t e rt w o day s , howev e r , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tw i t hdr e w t he g r ant f or r econsi derati on , an d i ssued a den i al ap proxi m atel y t en m on t h s l ater
. A f t er i den t i f yi n g t w o possibi l i t i es f or f i n di n gth at t h e st ate c ou rtvi ol ated M cC u l l ou gh ’ s ri gh t to d u e pro cess — th a t (1) th e dec l a ra n ts d i d n ot h a ve a F i ft h A m e n d m e n t p r iv ile g e a n d w e r e a v a ila b le to te s tify , o r (2 ) th e s ta te co u r t s h o u ld h ave ad m i t t ed thei r t est i m on y as an ex cepti on t o t h e hea rsay rul e— t h e di st ri ct c o u r t d is c r e d ite db o th
. Specif i c al l y, t he di st r i c tc our thel d t hatt he t r i alj udge had no a f f i r m at ive dut y t o pr o be a w i t ne s s ’ s as s e r t i o n o f a pr ivil e ge w he n t he as s e r t i o n i s not faci al l y spu ri ou s and w h ere the obj ect i n g pa rt y’ s att orney fai l s to r ai se t h e i ssue. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o h e ldt h a t th e s ta te co u r t o f a p p e a ls d idn o t u n r e a s o n a b ly appl y Ch a m b e rs , n or did it erro n eo u sly con cl u d e t h a t t h e d eclara n ts’statem en ts
w er e no tr el i abl e e nough t o g ive r i se t o adue pr oc es s vi ol at i on. M c C ul l ough
r e que s t e d ac e r t i f

i c at e o f a ppe al ab i l i t y ( “ CO A” ) , w hi c h t he di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d. W e , ho w e ve r , s ubs e que nt l y gr ant ed aCO A on t he s o l e i s s ue o f w he t he rt he
e xc l us i o n o f

t he s t at e m e nt s de pr ive d M c Cul l o ugho f hi s r i ghtt o putf

o r t h a d efen se in v i olati on of th e D u e P roce ss clau se. P u rsu a n t t o th a t gra n t, M c Cul l o ugha ppe al e d t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni alo f hi s ha be as pe t i t i o n. 2 I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW W e rev i ew the distri ct cou rt’ s f i n d i n gs of fact f

or clearerro r an d i ts c o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w de no vo . S c h a e tz lev . Co c k r e ll, 343 F .3d 440 , 443 ( 5th C i r. 2003) (c i t i ng F

ost er v. Joh n son , 293 F
. 3d766 , 776 ( 5t h C i r . 200 2) )
. Bec aus e t he
s t a t e c o u r tr u l e do n t h e me r i t s o f M c Cu l l o u g h ’ s c l a i m , AEDP A g o v e r n s o ur Case: 08-31174 Document: 00511048961 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 08- 31174

6 r e vi e w a nd pr o vi de s t hatw e “ m us tdef e rt o a st at e co ur t ’ s re s o l ut i o n of q ue s t i o ns of l aw an d m i xedq u est i on s of law a n d factu n l ess the st ate c ou rt ’ s ‘ adj u di cat i on of t he c l a i m . . . r e s ul t e d i n a d e c i s i o n t ha t was c o nt r a r y t o , o r i nv o lv e d an
unreas onabl e appl i c at i on of, cl ear l y est abl i she d F ede r all aw , as det er m i ned by th e S u p rem e C ou rt of th e U n i tedS tates.’” Fi el d s v. T h ale r , 588 F. 3d 270, 273 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (q u o tin g2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 )). “As ta te co u r t’s d e c is io n is
c o nt r ar y t o c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d f e de r al l aw if i t ‘ ap pl i e s a r ul e t hatc o nt r ad i c t s t he go ve rn i n g law set f

orth ’ i n S u p rem e C ou rt case s or ‘ i f th e sta te cou rt con fron ts a s e t o f fac t s t hat ar e m at e r i al l y i ndi s t i ngu i s hab l e f r o m a de ci si on of

[t he S u prem e C ou rt] an d n evert h el ess arrives at a resul tdi f ferent f rom [t h e C ou rt ’ s] p r e c e d e n t .’” Id
. ( quot i ng Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 5 2 9 U .S
. 3 6 2 , 4 0 5

– 0 6 (20 0 0 )) (a lte r a tio n in o r ig in a l). L i kew i se, “ [ a] st ate c ou rt ’ s deci si on i n vol ves an un reasona bl e app l i cat i on o f c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d f e de r all aw i f

t he s t at e c o urt‘ corr ect l y i de nt i f i e s t he gov er ni ng l egalr ul e b utappl i es i tunre as onabl y t o t he fac t s of a par t i c ul ar p r is o n e r ’s c a s e .’” Id
. ( quot i ng Wi l l i a ms , 529 U
. S
. a t407 –08 )
. Th e Su prem e C ou rt h as held t h at “ [f

] or t h i s s t an da rd t o be sat i sf i ed, th e st ate c ou rtdeci si on m u st h a ve be en ob j ectively u n rea son a b l e, . . . n ot j u st i n corre ct or erro n eo u s. ” Wigg i ns v . S m ith , 5 3 9 U .S . 5 1 0 , 5 1 1 (2 0 0 3 ) (in te r n a l cit a tio n o m itt e d ). W e re v ie w o n ly t h e reasonab l en ess o f th e s t ate c ou rt ’ s ul t i m ate deci si on , an d n ott h e w ri t t en o p in io n e x p la in in gth a t d e c is io n . S ch a etz le , 343 F. 3d at443 (c i t i ng Ne alv. P u ck ett , 2 8 6 F .3d 2 3 0 , 2 4 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) ( e n b a n c)). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON M cC u l l ou gh argu es t h at un der t h e Su prem e C ou rt ’ s de c i s i o n i n Ch am bers , t h e st ate c ou rt ’ s excl u si on of t h e t h ree prof

fered st atem en t s t o t h e pol i ce vi ol ated hi s r i ghtt o putf

o r w ar d ade fe ns e . I n Ch am bers , as t at e c o ur tb ar r e d t he i n t rodu ct i on of evi den ce t h at an ot h er i n di vi du al h ad confes sed t o t h e m u rder f or w hi c h t he pet i t i on er had be e n c har ge d. 4 10 U
. S. a t2 91 –9 2. Sp e c i f i c al l y, t he Case: 08-31174 Document: 00511048961 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 08- 31174

7 pe t i t i o ne rc al l e d t he de c l ar ant , t he de c l ar antr e pud i atedhi s pr e vi o us f o ur c o nfe s s i o ns , and t he s t at e c o ur tb ar r e d t he pe t i t i o ne r ’ s a t t e m pt s t o c hal l e nge t he
r e p u d ia tio n w ith e v id e n c e o f th e d e c la r a n t’s p r io ro u t-o f-c o u r t s ta te m e n ts
. Id
. a t 2 9 0

– 9 1
. The Supr e m e Cour tr e ve r s e d, no t i ng f i r s tt hatt he e xt e ntt o w hi c h t he d e c la ra n t’ s “sw orn con fessi on ten d ed to i n crim i n a te h i m , i t t en d ed also to
exc ul pat e” t he pet i t i oner , be c ause t he s t at e’ s evi denc e pr ec l uded t he t heor y t hat
m o r e t h a n o n e p e r s o n c o m m itt e dth e m u r d e r . Id
. at 297. A ddi t i onal l y, al t hough t he pet i t i onerof

fer ed hea r sa y s t at em ent s, h e di d s o “und erc i r c um st ance s t hat pr o vi de d c o ns i de r ab l e a s s ur anc e o f t he i rre l i ab i l i t y, ” i nc l udi ng t hat“ e ac h of [t he p e tit o n e r ’ s ] c o n fe s s io n s w a s m a d e s p o n ta n e o u s lyto aclo s e a c q u a in ta n c e s h o r tly af t er t h e m u rder h ad occurred, ” t h at “ each one w as cor roborat ed bysom e ot h er evi den ce i n t h e case, ” t h at “ each confessi on . . . w a s i n a very realsense s e l f

- i nc r i m i nat o r y and u n que s t i o nab l y ag ai ns ti nt e r e s t , ” a nd f i nal l y, t hatt he decl aran t“ w as present i n t h e court room an d w a s u n der oath, ” an d theref ore

“ [h] e c o ul d ha ve b e e n c r o s s - e xa m i ne d b y t h e St at e , a nd h i s de m e ano ra nd resp on ses w eigh ed bythe j u ry . ” Id
. a t3 00 –0 1. The Cour the l d t hatt he excl u si on of

“ critica l” excul pa t ory evi den ce acc om pa n i ed byconsi derab l e proof
o f r e l i ab i l i t y de ni e d t he p et i t i o ne r“ a t r i ali n a c c o r d wi t h t r ad i t i o nala nd fun d a m en tal st a n d a rd s of du e p roce ss. ” Id
. at302. T h e Ch am bers C o u rt e x p li citly l im it e dits h o ld in g , sta tin gth a t “[i]n
r e a c h in gth is ju d g m e n t, w e e s ta b lis h n o n e w p r in c ip le s o f c o n s tit u tio n a l la w . . . . R ather, w e hol d qu i t e si m pl y t h at u n der t h e fact s an d ci rcum st an ces of this case th e ru l i n gs of th e tri a lcou rt de p rive d[th e p e tit i on er] of a fa i r tri a l
. ” Id
. at 30 2– 03
. Ye ar s l at e r , t he Cour tde s c r ibe d Ch am bers a s “a n e x e r c is e in h ig h ly
ca se -sp e cific e rr o r co rr e ctio n ,” a n dn o te dth a t “th e h o ld in gof Ch am bers— if o ne c an be di s c e r ne d f

r o m s uc h afac t
- i nt e ns ive c as e — i s . . . t hate r r o ne o us evi den t i ary rul i n gs can, i n com bi n ati o n , ri se t o t h e l evelof a du e process Case: 08-31174 Document: 00511048961 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 08- 31174

8 v io la tion
. ” Mo n ta n av. E gelh off , 5 18 U
. S. 3 7, 5 3 ( 19 96 )
. W e ha ve f u rt h er c o ns t r ue d Ch am bers a s s ta n d in g“fo rth e lim ite dp r o p o s itio n th a t ‘ce r ta in eg reg i ou s ev i d en ti a ry erro rs m a y b e red ress ed bythe du e p roce ss clau se.’” L ittle v. Joh n son , 162 F
. 3 d 8 5 5 , 860 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng B a refoo t v. Este lle , 697 F .2d 5 9 3 , 5 9 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 3 )). M c Cul l o ugh ha s no ts ho w n t hatt he s t at e co ur tunr e as o nab l y ap pl i e d t he C h a m b ers h o ld in gto th e fac ts o f h is ca se . W e h a v e d e sc rib e dth e p e tition e r ’s t r i ali n Ch am bers as “ a pa l pa bl e m i scarr i age of j u st i ce” becau se “t h e st ate c ou rt hade xc l ude d e vi de nc e t hats t r o ngly po i nt e d t h e fi n ge ro f g ui l ta t[t he decl aran t ] , ” an d the decl aran t ’ s “i n cul pa t i on spel l e d [t h e peti t i on er’ s]
ex cu l p a ti on . ” Mane s s v . W ai nw r ight , 5 1 2 F .2 d8 8 , 9 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 5 ). In th is
c as e , ho w e ve r , no ne o f t he e xc l ude d t e s t i m o ny c l e ar l y e xc ul pa t e d M c Cul l o ugh
. G radl ey’ s s w orn confes si on t o pol i ce i m pl i cat ed h i m sel f, Joseph , an d three oth ers i n th e grou p m u rd er, b u t d i d n ot m en ti on M cC u l l ou g h ’ s in vo lve m en t. Si gni f i c ant l y, M c C ul l ough doe s notar gue t hatG r adl ey tol d pol i c e t hat M cC u l l ou gh w as n o t i n vol ved ; rat h er, he si m pl y poi n t s out t h at G radl ey n ever m en ti on ed h i s n a m e. Iti s u n cl ea r f rom the reco rdw h eth er G ra d l eyi n ten d ed to exh au st ivel y l i sthi s c o- perpetrat ors, an d Josep h ’ s s t atem en tt o pol i ce— w h i ch i m pl i c at ed M c C ul l ough an d thr ee ot her s notnam ed byG r adl ey— sugge st s t hat h e d idn o t. Si m i l ar l y, Bus h’ s and H o w ar d’ s st at e m e nt s do no tex c ul pa t e M c Cul l o ugh
. H ow ard m en t i on ed t h at h e overhea rd several i n di vi du al s pl an n i n g t h e m u rder,
an d alt h ou gh he d i d n ot m en t i on t h at M cC u l l ou gh h el ped pl an t h e cr i m e, he als o d id n o tte s t if

ya s to th o s e w h o a c t u a ll yc a r r ie do u tth e o ffe n s e . L ik e w is e , B u s h ’s
s ta te m e n t r e c o u n te daco n v e r s a tio n in w h ic h tw o in d iv id u a ls a d m i tt e dth e ir pa rt i ci pa t i on in th e m u rder af t er itocc u rred. A l t h ou gh B u sh d i d n otm en t i on M c C u l l ou gh , h e a l so fail ed to m en ti on G ra d l ey— th e fi rst to con fess h is in v o lv e m e n tt o th e p o li c e — w h ic h d e t r a c t s fr o m th e w e ig h to f M c C u ll o u g h ’s Case: 08-31174 Document: 00511048961 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 08- 31174

McC ullough also makes a conclu soryremark that the trial judge erred byfailing to 3 que stionGradley , Bush, a nd Howard a s to whether the had correctlyasserted their Fifth Amen dment privile ge s. The thre e declarant s had alrea dy been convicted and sentenced to deathfor their participation int hemurder, and because Gradleyan d Howard’s convictions and sentences had been affirme d bythe Loui sian a SupremeCourt , it appears th at theymay nothave h a d a vali d Fif thAm en dm ent privilege toa ssert
. See State v. Smith , 68 7 S o. 2 d 52 9, 542(La. C t. App. 19 96). At trial, however, McC ullough did not obj ect to theira s s ertion of privile ge , an d onapp eal , he does not cite anycaselaw sugge sting th at the trial j udge h ad an affirmative dutyto inve stigate thedeclarants’ assertion more thoroughly . Assuming th at an erroroccurre d, however , we note that it would not rise to the level of adue process viol ation warranting

h abe as relief, largelybecau se McC ullough has not argued that anytestimonyat trial b ydeclarantswouldexculp atehim
. 9 as s e r t i o n t hathi s a bs e nc e f r om B u sh’ s s t at e m e nte xc ul pa t e d hi m f r o m t he cri m e. A d d itio n a lly , th e s ta te m e n ts d o n o t sh a r e th e s a m e “ c o n s id e r a b le
a s s u r a n c e o f . .
. r e lia b ility ” t h a t t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t fo u n d p e r s u a s iv e in Ch am bers
. 410 U
. S
. at 300. Bu sh and H ow ar d gave t hei rs t at em ent s i n an at t em ptt o e xc ul pat e t hem se lves ; in o th erw or ds, t hey w er e no t“ i n a ve r y r eal
sen se se l f- i n crim i n a toryan du n q u estion a b l y a ga i n st i n teres t. ” Id . H o w a r dd id
n o tp r o v i d e as wo r n s t a t e me n t , an d al t h o u g h B u s h g a v e o n e o f h i s t wo s ta te m e n ts to p o lic e w h ile u n d e ro a th , M c C u llo u g h d e s c r ib e s B u s h a s h is “h a lf b r o t h e r ,” w h ic h , if

a n y t h in g , r a i s e s q u e s t io n s a s to th e r e li a b il it yo f B u s h ’s fai l u re to m en ti on M cC u l l ou gh ’ s i n vo lve m en t. G ra d l ey ’ s statem en t pre sen ts a closer q u estion , a s h i s sw orn con fessi on to po l i c e c l e ar l y w en ta ga i ns thi s pe nali nt e r e s t
. The po l i c e f o und hi s s t at e m e nt
r e l i ab l e e no ugh t o i s s ue w ar r ant s f o rt he ar r e s tof

t ho s e he i m pl i c at e d, a nd t he
s t at e c o ur tf

o und i tr e l i ab l e e no ugh t o i nt r o duc e a ga i ns thi m a thi s t r i al
. On t he
o th e r h a n d , G r a d le y ’ s a s s e r tio n o f h is F ifth A m e n d m e n t p r iv ile g e re n d e r e dh im
u n ava i l able as a w i t n ess an d thu s not sub j ect to cr oss- exam i n ati on , w h i ch pr e ve nt e d t he St at e f r o m ex am i ni ng t he ve r ac i t y o rac c ur ac y o f hi s c o nfe s s i o n. 3 Thes e di s t i nc t i o ns c o nvi nc e us t hat M c Cul l o ugh has no t de m o ns t r at e d t hatt he
s t at e c o ur tunr e as o nab l y ap pl i e d Ch am bers ’ s narr ow hol di ng. Case: 08-31174 Document: 00511048961 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/11/2010N o. 08- 31174

10 IV . C ONC L US I ON A ft e rr e v ie w in gth e s t a t e c o u r t s ’s u lt im a t e c o n c l u s i o n o n M c C u ll o u g h ’s Ch am bers cl ai m , w e can n otsaytha tit“res u l t ed i n a d eci si on t h at w as contr ary t o , o ri n v o lv e da n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f, c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e dF e d e r a ll a w, a s d e t e r m i n e db yt h e S u p r e m e Co ur tof t h e Un i t e dS t a t e s . ” 2 8 U. S
. C § 22 54 ( d) ( 1)
. Bec aus e t he s t at e m e nt s M c Cul l o ughpr o f fe r e d ha d nei t he rt he exculpator y effec tnor t h e i n di ci a of rel i abil i t y n ecess ary t o t h e Ch am bers h oldin g, M cC u l l ou gh h a s n ot d em on strate d a d u e pro cess violatio n . W e th e re for e a ffi rm th e d istr ict co u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in gh is p e tition forh a b e a s r e li e f. A F F IR M E D
. Case: 08-31174 Document: 00511048961 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/11/2010