2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-14-2005 

# B ronsht ein v

. H orn
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 01-9004

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" B r on sht ein v

. H or n " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1280. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1280P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N os . 01- 9004 & 01- 9005

____________ 

### AN TU AN BR ON SH TE IN

v. M A R T IN L . H O R

N , C o m m issio n er, P enn sylv an ia De partm e nt

of Corr e c t i ons

MARTIN HORN, COMMI SSI ONER, PENN SY LV AN I A D EP AR TM EN T O F CO RREC TI ON S; *JAM ES PRI CE , SU PE RINT EN DENT OF TH E S TA TE CO RREC TI ON AL INS TI TU TI ONAT GREENE ;

J OSEPH P. MA ZU RKI EW I CZ , SU PE RINT EN DENT OF TH E

ST AT E C ORRE CT I ON AL IN S T IT U T IO N A T R O C KV IE W; * * G E RA L D J.

PA PP ER T, AT TO RN EY GENE RA L O F P ENNS YL VANI A, Appe l l ant s , No. 01- 9004 * (P ursu an t to Ru le 1 2 (a), F .R .A .P .) **( Am e nde d i n a c c or danc e wi th Cl e rk’ s Or de r dat e d 6/23/ 04)

___________________ AN TUANBR ON SH TE IN, Appe l l ant , No. 01- 9005

v.2 

### MARTIN HORN, Comm i s s i one r , Pe nns yl vani aDe partm e nt of Co rr e c t i on s ; *JAM ES PRI CE , SU PE RINT EN DENT OF TH E S TA TE CO RREC TI ON AL INS TI TU TI ONAT GREENE ; J OS EP H P

. MA ZU RKI EW I CZ , SU PE RINT EN DENT OF TH E S TA TE CO RREC TI ON AL INS TI TU TI ONAT RO CKVI EW ; ** GE RA LD J

. PA PP ER T, AT TO RN EY GE NE RA L O F P ENNS YL VANIA *(Am ended in accordancewith Cler k's Order dat ed 8 /2 9 /0 1 .) ** (Am ended in accordancewith Cler k's Order dat ed 6 /2 3 /0 4 .)

____________________ O N A PPEA L FR O M TH E U N I TED STA TES DI S T RI CT CO UR T F OR T HE E AS T E RN D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA ( D

. C

. N o. 99- cv- 02186) D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le L o w ell A

. R ee d , Jr.

___________________ A r gued: A pr i l 22, 2003 B efor e: A L I T O , B A R R Y , and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 14, 2005) Pat r i ck J

. O ’ C onnor , E s q. Pet erG

. R os s i , E s q. C ozen O ’ C onnor 1900 M ar ketSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 L oui s M

. N at al i , J r . E s q. ( A r gued) Tu r n e r& M c Do n a l d , P

. C. 1725 Spr uce Str eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el forA ppel l ee/ C r os s - A ppel l ant3 Pat r i ci a E. C oonahan ( A r gued) A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or neyC apt ai n, A ppel l at e D i vi s i on M aryM acN ei l K i l l i nger D eputyD i s t r i ctA t t or ney C hi ef, A ppel l at e D i vi s i on O ffi ce of D i s t r i ctA t t or ney P. O

. B ox 311 N or r i s t ow n, PA 19104 C ouns el forA ppel l ant s / C r os s - A ppel l ees

_________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________________ A L I T O , C i r cui tJ udge: A n tuan B ro n sh tei n w as c o n v ict ed in a P en n sy lvan ia co u rt for fi r s t
- degr ee m ur der and s ent ence d t o death. A ft eruns ucce s s ful pos t
- t r i al l i t i gat i on i n t he s t at e court s , he fi l ed t he habea s pet i t i on now ati s s ue. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound m er i t i n s om e butnotal l of Br o n s h t e i n ’ s c l a i ms a n d o r d e r e d t h a t a wr i t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s be gr ant ed unl es s B r ons ht ei n w as r etr i ed w i t hi n a s peci fi ed t i m e. T he hab ea s r es pondent( her ei naft er“the C om m onw eal t h”) appea l ed, and B r ons ht ei n cr os s - appea l ed. W e r ever s e the or derof t he Di s t r i c tCo u r ti n s o f

a ra s i t r e q u i r e d a n e w g u i l t
- p h a s e t r i a l , b u twe a f f ir m in s o f a r a s it r e q u ir e d re s e n te n c in g .

I. I n A pr i l 1994, A ntuan B r ons ht ei n w as t r i ed i n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of M ont gom ery C ount y on char ges s t emm i ng fr om t he r obberyand s hoot i ng death of A lexa nderG ut m an. T he evi dence at t r i al m ay be sum m ar i zed fol l ow s . A t about5 p. m . on J anuary1 1, 1991, M ont gom eryC ount ypol i ce i nves t i gat ed a r obbery at a s t or e cal l ed J ew el r y by A l ex i n t he V all ey F o r ge Shoppi ng C ent er . See C om m onw eal t h v

. B r ons ht ei n, 691 A

. 2d 907, 911 ( Pa. 1997) , cert

. deni ed, 522 U

. S. 936 ( 1997)

. T he pol i ce4 di s cover ed that t he pr opr i et or , A l exande rG ut m an, had bee n ki l l ed byt w o guns hot w ounds t o t he fac e. I d. I nves t i gat or s found t hr ee f in g e rp rin ts a n d a p a lm p rin t o n o n e o f th e in tac t d is p la yc a se s in t he st or e, and t hes e pri nt s w er e l at eri dent i fi ed as B r ons ht ei n’ s . I d. O n F e b ru a r y2 7 , 1 9 9 1 , B ro n sh tein c o n tac ted P h ilad e lp h ia pol i ce i nves t i gat or s and s ai d t hathe w ant ed t o di s cus s t he murde r o f a n o th e r je w e ler , Je ro m e S lo b o tk in , w h o h a d b e e n k ill e d in Phi l adel phi a on February 19, 1991. B r ons ht ei n, 691 A

. 2d at912. A ft erw ai vi ng hi s M ir anda r i ght s , B r ons ht ei n s i gned a de t ai l ed w ritten c o n f

e ss io n a d m itt in g to th e S lo b o tk in m u rd e r, an d in February1992, he w as convi ct ed fort hatoffe ns e. I d. A b o u t a m o n th a f

ter B ro n sh tein c o n f

e ss e d to th e S lo b o tk in m u rd e r, M o n tg o m e ryC o u n typ o lice m e t w ith B ro n sh tein , at h is r e q u e s t , t o d i s c u s s t h e Gu t ma n mu r d e r . Du r i n g t h i s i n t e r v i e w, B ro n sh tein d e n ied k ill in g S lo b o tk in a n d sa id th a t b o th S lo b o tk in a n d G u tm a n h a d b e e n k ill e d b y a “ M r. X ,” w h o m B ro n sh tein des cr i b e d a s a h i g h

- l e v e l me mbe ro f t h e “ Rus s i a n ma f

i a . ” I d. D ur i ng t hi s i nt er vi ew , B r ons ht ei n di d notdi s cl os e M r . X ’ s name, but he l at eri dent i fi ed hi m as A di k K ar l i t s ky , anotherj ew el er . I d. A l t hough B r ons ht ei n t ol d t he M ont gom eryC ount yp ol i ce t hathe had no t k il led G ut m an, B r ons ht ei n admi t t ed thathe w as ac q u ainted w ith h im an d that h e k n ew that h e o w n ed a jew elry s t or e. B r ons ht ei n, 691 A

. 2d at 912. H ow ever , B r ons ht ei n deni ed know i ng t he l ocat i on of t he s t or e oreven thatof t he V al l eyFor ge S h o p p in g C e n ter , an d h e c laim e d th a t h e h a d n o t se e n G u tm a n in m or e than tw o y ear s . I d. A tt r i al , how ever , t hr ee w i t nes s es i dent i fi ed B r ons ht ei n as a man w hom t heyhad s een i n ornearG ut m an’ s s t or e on the dayof hi s m ur der

. L aur a Sechr i s ts t at ed thats he had pas s ed t he s t or e at appr oxi m at el ynoon and had s een Bron sh te i n and anotherm an tal k ing to G u tm an . B ron sh tei n , 6 9 1 A

. 2 d at 91 2

. L arry B ai nbr i dge, a pos t al carr i er , t es t i fi ed thathe had w al ked byt he s t or e at12: 45 p. m . and had s een B r ons ht ei n behi nd the count er . I d. A l exande rD ani els t es t i fi ed thathe had pa s s ed the s t or e atabout 3: 15 p. m . and had s een Brons ht ei n s t andi ng out s i de t he s t or e. I d.5 Fi nal l y , a man nam ed W il so n Per ez t es t i fi ed aboutan admi s s i on m ade by B ron s ht ei n dur i ng J anuary1991. A ccor di ng t o Per ez, he and Brons ht ei n w er e r i di ng i n B r ons ht ei n ’s ca ron R oos evel tB oul evar d i n Phi l adel phi a w hen B r ons ht ei n s ai d t hathe had ki l l ed a man i n a j ew el r ys t or e “outpas tt he bo u leva rd” and had t aken hi s j ew el r y . B ron sh te i n, 691 A

. 2d at912. A s t he P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt n o ted , R o o se v e lt B o u lev a rd “ ru n s in a no rt herl y and sout he r l y di r e c t i on t hroug h N ort heast P h il a d e lp h ia,” a n d “ [ i]n o rd e r to tra v e l to M o n tg o m e ryC o u n ty f ro m a lar g e se c tio n o f

N o r th e a s t P h ilad e lp h ia, it is n e c e ss a ryto cr os s . . . R oos evel t B o u leva rd. ” I d. at912 n. 12. Per ez f ur t her test ifi ed that B ron sh tei n h a d g iven u n set g em ston es to P ere z’s br ot her

. I d. at912. T he C om m onw eal t h pr ocee ded on the theoryt hat , al t hough a s econd pe r s on had pr obabl ybeen i nvol ved in the r obberyof G ut m an’ s s t or e, i tw as B r ons ht ei n w ho i nt ent i onal l ys hotand ki l l ed G u tm a n . B ro n sh tein , o n th e o th e r h a n d , co n ten d e d th a t A d ik K ar l i t s kys hotand ki l l ed G ut m an. A ccor di ng t o B r ons ht ei n, Ka r l i t s k ywa s a h i g h

- l e v e l me mb e ro f a Ru s s i a n o r g a n i z e d c r i me g rou p . B ron sh tei n said that h e w o rke d fo r K arlit sk yas a jew elry “f en ce ” an d h ad m ere lyac co m p an ied K arli tskyto G u tm an ’s st o re wi t h o u tk n o wi n g t h a tKa r l i t s k ywa s g o i n g t o k i l l h i m. T h e juryco n v ict ed B ron sh tei n o f f ir st-d e g re e m u rde r, r obbery , t heftof mo v a b l e pr oper t y , and pos s es s i on of an i ns t rum ent of cr i m e, as w el l as cons pi r acyt o comm i tm ur der , r obbery , and t heft

. A tt he penal ty p h ase, t he j ur yfound t w o aggr avat i ng c irc u m sta n c e s: th a t B ro n sh tein h a d “ c o m m itt e d [ th e ] k ill in g w h ile in the p erp e tr a tion o f a fe lon y , ” 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat

. § 9 7 1 1 (d)(6 ), and thathe had “ a s i gni fi canthi s t or yof fe l onyconvi ct i ons i nv olvi ng t he u se or threatof v i olence t o t he person. ” 42 P a. C on s. S t at

. § 9 71 1(d)( 9). T he j ury fou nd t hree m i t i gati ng ci rcum st ances: extr eme m ent al oremot i onal di s turbance , poorchi l dhood upbr i ngi ng, and “a pos s i bi l i t yt hatthe def endantdi d not p ul l t he tr igg er.” A p p . V I at 1 9 6 9 ; see 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat

. § 9 7 1 1 (e)(2), ( 8 ). H ow ever , t he jury found t hatt he aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s out w ei ghed the mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s and ac cor di ngl yr etur ned a s ent ence of dea t h fort he fi r s t
- degr ee mur derconv ict i on. T he trial c o u rt su b se q u e n tlyim p o se d th e d e a th se n ten c e a lo n g w ith6 cons ecut i ve t er m s of i m pr i s onm entfort he ot herconvi ct i ons . T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme Court aff i r m ed, C om m onw eal th v. B r ons ht ei n, 6 9 1 A

. 2d 907 ( Pa. 1997) , and the U ni t ed St at es Sup r e me Co u r t d e n i e d c e r t i o r a r i o n Oc t o b e r 2 0 , 1 9 9 7

. 5 2 2 U. S. 9 3 6 (19 9 7 ). O n D ece m ber 3 , 1997, t he C ent erforL egal E ducat i on, A dvocac yand D efe ns e A s s ist an ce ( “C L E A D A ”) fi l ed a “ pr o s e” P o st- C o n v ict ion R eli ef A ct (“P C R A ”) pe ti ti o n o n B ro n sh tei n ’s behal f ( “pr o s e PC R A pet i t i on”)

. T he pet i t i on di d n o t state any c l a i m f o rr e l i e f; i tme r e l ys t a t e d : “ Th i s i s n o ta c o u n s e l e d P CRA pet i t i on, buta r eques tt o i ni t i at e r evi ew , fi l ed pr o s e. A couns el ed p eti ti o n sh all b e f

il ed lat er p u rsua n t t o the c o u rt ’s ord er.” A p p . V II a t2 1 2 6

. T h e p e t i t i o n w a s s i g n e d b y a C L E A D A a t t o r n e y, purpor t edl yw i t h B r ons ht ei n’ s author i zat i on. Shor t l yaft erthe “pr o s e” PC R A pet i t i on w as fi l ed, B ro n sh tein p e rso n a llyin f o rm e d th e trial c o u rt “ th a t h e w ish e d to w ai ve hi s r i ght t o appea l and t o t er m i nat e t he PC R A p roce edi ngs s o t hatt he s ent ence of dea t h coul d be ca r r i ed outi m m edi at el y . ” I d. at2121. H e l at er t ol d t he cour t t hat t he C L E A D A at t or ney s “had been mi s l eadi ng hi m and ac t i ng contr aryt o hi s i ns t ruct i ons [. ] ” I d. at2121 n. 2. O n J anuary26, 1999, aft er ext ens i ve l i t i gat i on over B r ons ht ei n’ s compet encyt o w ai ve hi s r i ght s under t he PC R A , t he t r i al cour ti s s ued an or derdi s m i s s i ng the “p ro s e” PC R A pet i t i on w i t h p r e j u d i c e . T h e c o u r t f

o u n d t h a tB r o n s h t e i n h a d “ k n o w i n g l y, i nt el l i gent l yand vol unt ar i l y ” s oughtt o w i t hdr aw t he pet i t i on. I d. at2125. B r ons ht ei n’ s m ot herand s is t erfi l ed a ne xtfr i end appe al fr om t he tr i al cour t ’ s or der

. O n A pr i l 16, 1999, the ap p ea l w as deni ed byt he Pen n sy lvani a Supr eme C our t , w hi ch hel d t hatt he a p p e llan ts ha d f

a iled to sh o w th a t B ro n sh tein w a s in c o m p e ten t. Co mm o n we a l t h v . Br o n s h t e i n , 7 2 9 A. 2 d 1 1 0 2 ( P a . 1 9 9 9 )

. On A pr i l 23, 1999, B r ons ht ei n’ s m ot her and s i s t erfi l ed a pe t i t i on for a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s in th e D istric t C o u rt a n d a sk e d th e C o u rt to i s s ue a s t ay of exec ut i on. O n A pr i l 29, 1999, dur i ng a hea r i ng on t he pet i t i on, B r ons ht ei n i nfor m ed the D i s t r i ctC ourt that he had change d hi s m i nd and w i s hed t o pur s ue pos t
- convi ct i on r el i ef. T he Di s tr i c tCou rts t a y ed B r ons ht ei n’ s exec ut i on, appoi nt ed couns el for7 hi m , and gave hi m 120 day s t o pr epar e and f i l e hi s ow n fede r al habea s pet i t i on. O n Ju n e 9, 1 9 9 9 , B ron sh tei n fil ed w ith the s tat e tri al co u rt a pe t i t i o n s t y l e d a s a n “ Am e n d e d Pe t i t i o n Fo rHab e a s C or pus R el i ef U nd er A rt i cl e I, S ect i on 14 O f T he P enn sy l van ia C ons t i tut i on A nd For St atut or y Post C onvi ct i on R el i ef U nderT he PostC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct

. ” T he t r i al cour t t r eat ed t he pet i t i on as a s econd PC R A pet i t i on and di s m i s s ed i tforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, h o ld in g b o th th a t B ro n sh tein h a d “ irre v o c a b ly w a iv e d ” h is rig h t to s e e k p o s t
- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f a n d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n w a s u n t i m e l y. A pp. V I I at 2111- 13. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our taff i r m ed, st at i ng t ha ti t“ a gr e e [d ] w i t h the PCR A c ou r tt ha t[Br on s ht e i n’ s] pet i t i on [w as ] unt i m el y , l eavi ng [i t ] w i t houtj ur i s di ct i on t o r eac h [B r ons ht ei n’ s ] i s s ues . ” C om m onw eal t h v. B r ons ht ei n, 752 A

. 2d 868, 871 ( Pa. 2000)

. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme Courtfound t hat B ro n sh tein ’s “

ju d g m e n t b e c a m e f

in a l o n O c to b e r 2 0 , 1 9 9 7 , the d a te t hatt he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme Court deni ed cert i or ar i

. ” I d. at870. T he s t at e s upr eme cour tt her efor e r eas oned thatB r ons ht ei n “w as r equi r ed t o fi l e hi s pet i t i on forpos t
- convi ct i on r el i ef w i t hi n one y earof O ct ober20, 1997, t hat i s by O ct ober20, 1998, i n or derfor h is P C R A p e tit io n to b e tim e lyf iled .” Id . T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d id n o t a d d r e s s th e q u e stio n w h e th e r B ro n sh tein had “i r r evoca bl yw ai ved” hi s r i ght t o s eek pos t
- convi ct i on r el i ef, as t he tr i al cour thad hel d. B r ons ht ei n fi l ed th e pr es entpet i t i on forw r i tof habe as co rp u s p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 5 4 o n Oct o b e r 2 7 , 1 999. T he p e tit io n a ss e rte d 1 5 c laim s, b u t o n lyse v e n a re a t i s su e in th is appea l

. T h e fol l ow i ng cl ai m s ( num ber ed as t heyw er e i n t he peti t i on ) ar e bef

ore us: I

. T he tr i al cour tvi ol at ed du e proc es s by err oneous l yins t ruct i ng t he j ur yt hat B r ons ht ei n’ s s peci fi c i nt entcoul d be i nferr ed fro m the a cti o n s o f h is co -co n sp ir ator. I I I

. B r ons ht ei n’ s deat h sen tenc e vi ol at es t he E ig h th A m e n d m e n t b e c a u se it w a s b a se d in par t on an aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance ( 4 2 P a.8 C o n s. S tat

. A n n . § 9 7 1 1 (d)(6 )) th at t h e jury d id n o t f in d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. I V

. T he tr i al cour tvi ol at ed B r ons ht ei n’ s fede r al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s byexcl u d i ng m at er i al and r el evantdefe ns e evi dence

. V

. T he tr i al cou rt ’s adm i ssi on of “o t her cr i m es” evi den ce v iolate d B r ons ht ei n’ s fede r al con st i tuti on al ri gh t s. V I

. B r ons ht ei n’ s due pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed b yre p e a ted a c ts o f

p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t. V I I

. T h e p r o s e c u tio n v i o l a t e d B a t s o n v . K e n tu c k y, 476 U

. S. 79 ( 1986) , byexer ci s i ng a per empt or ys t r i ke aga i ns t a pot ent i al j ur orof R us s i an- J ew i s h her i t age. I X

. T h e t ri al cou rt viol at ed th e E ig h th A m endment by fai l i ng t o i nfor m t he j ur yt hat a l i fe s ent enc e i n Penns y l vani a means l i fe w i t houtt he pos s i bi l i t yof par ol e. T he D i s t r i ct C our thanded dow n a dec i s i on w i t houthol di ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng. See B r ons ht ei n v. H or n, 2001 W L 767593, 2001 U

. S. D i s t

. L E X I S 9310 (E

. D

. P a. Jul y 5 , 2 0 0 1 ). B ef o re reachi ng t he m eri t s of B ronsht ei n’s cl ai m s, t he D i stri ct C ou rtfi rs t addr es s ed the i s s ue of pr ocedu ral d efa ul t

. A l t hough s om e of B ronsht ei n’s cl ai m s had been rai sed i n the st at e cou rt s for the fir st ti m e in th e se c o n d P C R A p eti ti o n , w h ich th e state su p rem e c o u rt h a d f o u n d t o b e u n t i me l y , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r th e l d t h a tt h e s e c l a i ms w er e notpr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed, “bec aus e the pr ocedur al rul e that th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia r e lied u p o n in re jec ti n g h is c l a i ms wa s n o tc l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d o rr e g u l a r l y f o l l o we d a tt h e t i me o f h is a lleg e d d e f

a u lt, [ a n d ] th e re f

o re w a s n o t su f

f icie n tly

‘ adequa t e’ t o barfede r al habea s r evi ew . ” A pp. I a t 3, 7- 21. T ur ni ng t o t he mer i t s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl u d ed t hatt he tr i al cou r t ’ s i n s t ru c t i o n s o n c o - c o n s p i r a t o rl i a b i l i t yh a d v i o l a t ed B ro n sh tein ’s d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts byper m i t t i ng t he j ur yt o convi ct9 B r ons ht ei n of fi r s t
- degr ee mur derw i t hout fi ndi ng t hathe had the s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l , and the D i s t r ictC our tfound t hatt hi s err or w as nothar m l es s . See i d

. at 25- 34. T he D i s t r i ctC our tnext c o n c lu d e d th a t th e trial c o u rt h a d v io late d S im m o n s v . S o u th C a ro lin a , 5 1 2 U .S

. 1 5 4 (1 9 9 4 ), b yf a ili n g to in f

o rm th e ju ryth a t a Penns y l vani a pr i s oners ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm entm aynotbe par ol ed. S ee i d. at35- 41. Fi nal l y , t he C our tconcl uded that B r o n s ht ei n’ s death s ent ence vi ol at ed the Ei ght h A m endment beca us e i tw as bas ed i n par t on an i nval i d aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance (4 2 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 9 7 1 1 (d )(6 ) (c o m m iss io n o f th e k ill in g w h ile in the p erp etrati o n o f a fe lon y )). T h e C o u rt o rd e re d th a t a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s b e iss u e d if t he C om m onw eal t h di d notr etr yB r ons ht ei n w i t hi n 180 day s , and i n l i ghtof t hi s r el i ef, t he C our tfound i t unnece s s ary t o addr es s t he o t h e r c l a i ms r a i s e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n . Se e App

. I a t 4 6 n . 33. T he C our ts t at ed thatB r ons ht ei n had notar gued “thathi s con v i ct i ons f o r ro b b e ry, th e f

t, an d c o n s p ir a c y w e re c o n s titu tio n a l l y f l a w e d ,” and the C our t t her efor e di d “not cons i dert hos e convi ct i ons [. ] ” I d. at47 n. 35. Br o n s h t e i n f

i l e d a mot i o n t o a l t e ro ra me n d t h e j u dgm ent pur s uantt o Fed. R

. C i v . P. 59( e)

. H e ar gued thathi s § 2254 pet i t i on di d i n fac tr ai s e cl ai m s – s peci fi cal l y , C l ai m s I V , V , V I and V II – ch al l eng i ng his robbery , t heft, an d c o n spi racycon vict i on s. T he D i s t r i ctC our t deni ed t he m ot i on and hel d t hatt he “vol um i nous and ca r eful l ycr aft ed s ub m issi o n s on [C l ai m s I V , V and V I ] can onl ybe r ead t o chal l enge the murde rconvi ct i on. ” B ron sht ei n v. H or n, 2001 W L 936702 ( E

. D

. P a. A ug. 16, 2001)

. H ow ever , t he C our tagr eed w i t h B r ons ht ei n t hatC l ai m V I I addr es s ed the other convi ct i ons , butt he C our tr ej ect ed thatcl ai m on t he mer i t s . I d. T he C om m onw eal t h has appea l ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der gr ant i ng r el i ef on Cl aim s I , I I I , and I X

. B r ons ht ei n has fi l ed a cr os s - appea l , and he req u est s a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yon C l ai m s I V , V , V I an d V II. H i s r eques tw as r efe r r ed t o t hi s panel a n d is n o w b e f

o re u s a lo n g w ith th e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s a p p e a l.10 II. W e fi r s tcons i dert he cl ai m s ( i

. e. , C l ai m s I , I I I , and I X ) on w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted re li ef

. A ll o f th ese claim s w ere r a i s e d f o rt h e f i r s tt i me i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t s i n t he s e c o n d P CRA pet i t i on and, as not ed, t h e Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our taff i r m ed t h e d i s m i s s a l o f

t h a tp e t i t i o n o n t h e g r o u n d t h a ti tw a s u n t i m e l y. T he C om m onw eal t h t her efor e cont ends t hatfede r al habea s r evi ew of t he mer i t s of t hes e cl ai m s i s bl ocked byt he doctr i ne of p ro c e d u ra l d e f

a u lt. T he pr ocedur al defa ul t doctr i ne pr ecl udes a fede r al habea s c o u r tf r o m “ r e v i e w [ i n g ] a q u e s t i o n o f f e d e r a l l a w d e c i d e d b y a s t at e courti f t he dec i s i on of t hatcour tr es t s on a s t at e l aw gr ound t hat i s i ndepende ntof t he fede r al ques t i on and a d e q u a te to su p p o rt t he j udgm ent

. ” C ol eman v. T hom ps on, 501 U

. S. 722, 729 ( 1991) ( emphasi s added)

. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme Court has empl oy ed a v a ri e ty o f

te s ts to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a s ta te g ro u n d is “ a d e q u a te .” A m ong ot hert hi ngs , s t at e pr ocedur al rul es have be en h el d t o be in a d e q u a te if

th e y a re n o t “f

irm lye sta b lish e d a n d re g u lar ly fol l ow ed, ” F o rd v . G eor gi a, 498 U

. S. 411, 424 ( 1991) ( quot i ng J ames v. K entucky , 466 U

. S. 341, 348- 51 ( 1984) ) ; s ee al s o B arrv. C ityo f C o lum b ia, 3 7 8 U .S . 1 4 6 , 1 4 9 (19 6 4 ), o r i f th eyare
“ n o v e l[ ]” a n d u n f

o re se e a b le. N A A C P v . A lab a m a e x re l. P att erso n, 357 U

. S. 449, 457 ( 1958) ; s ee a l s o For d, 498 U

. S. at 4 2 4

. F i rs t , t he tes t ensures that fede ral revi ew i s n ot bar red unless a h a b e a s p e tit io n e r h a d f a ir n o tice o f

th e n e e d to f

o llo w th e sta te pr ocedur al rul e. A s w e s ai d i n C abr er a v. B arbo, 175 F. 3d 307, 3 1 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), “a p e tit io n e r sh o u ld b e o n n o tice o f h o w to pr es enthi s cl ai m s i n t he s t at e court s i f hi s fai l ur e t o pr es entt hem i s t o barhi m fr om advanc i ng t hem i n a fe der al cour t

. ” Second, t he “‘ fi r m l yes t abl i s hed and r egul ar l yfol l ow ed’ t es t ” p rev en ts d iscri m ina t i on. “N ovel t yi n pr ocedur al r equi r ement s , ” N A A C P v. A l abama ex r el

. Pat t er s on, 357 U

. S. at 457, can be us ed as a means of def eat i ng cl ai m s t hatar e di s favor ed on t he mer i t s . I f i ncons i s t ent l y appl i ed pr ocedur al rul es s uffi ced a s “ade quat e” gr ounds of dec i s i on, they coul d pr ovi de a c onveni entT h is p ro v isio n sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: 1 ( 1) A nypet it ion undert hi s s ubchapt er , i ncl udi ng a 11 pr et extfors t at e court s t o s cut t l e fe der al cl ai m s w i t houtfeder al r evi ew . T he r equi r ement of r egul arappl i cat i on ens ur es t hatr evi ew i s for ecl os ed byw h atm ayhones t l ybe ca l l ed “rul es ” – di r ect i ons of g eneral app l i cabil i t y – rather than byw him or prej ud i ce aga i nst a c laim o r c laim a n t. In th is c a s e , as n o ted , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t th e sta te p r o c e d u r a l ru l e o n whi c h t h e Pe n n s y l v a n i a Su p r e me Cou r t bas ed i t s deci s i on w as not“fi r m l y es t abl i s hed and r egul ar l y fol l ow ed” a t t he rel evan tt i m e. T he C ou rt ’s analy si s proceeded i n thr ee st eps. Fi r s t , the C our t i dent i fi ed t he r el evant rul e as “the rul e that § 9545( b) ( 1) oper at es as an abs ol ut e, j ur i s di ct i onal bart o hear i ng t he mer i t s of a l at e PC R A pet i t i on, and that no exce pt i ons out s i de t hos e i n t he s t atut e mays ave a pet i t i on fi l ed more t han one y ear aft ert he dat e j udgm entbecomes fi nal

. ” A pp. I at13. Second, t he C our tconcl uded thatt he r el evantpoi nti n t i m e w as “the mom ent p e t i t i o n e rv i o l a t e d t h e p r o c e d u r a l ru l e ; t h a ti s , a tt h e t i me B ro n s h te in ’s o n e -ye a r w in d o w u n d e r § 9 5 4 5 (b )( 1 ) c lo s e d

. ” Id

. Si nce di r ectr evi ew of B r ons ht ei n’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence ended w h e n the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtd en ied h is pe ti ti o n fo r a w r i t of ce r t i or ar i on O ct ober20, 1997, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded that the c ri ti ca l date w as O ctob er 2 0 , 1 9 9 8

. F inally , the C o u rt f o u n d th a t th e sta te p ro c e d u ra l ru le a p p lied b y th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our tw as not“fi r m l yes t abl i s he d a n d r e g u l a r l yfol l ow ed” on t hatdat e. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our t t hat t he rul e appl i ed byt he Penns y l vani a S upr eme C our tw as notfi r m l yes t abl i s hed and r egul ar l yap p li ed unt i l aft erB r ons ht ei n m i s s ed the PC R A ’ s oney earfi l i ng deadl i ne. T o be s ur e, t he per t i nents t atut or ypr ovi s i on, 42 Pa. C ons . St at

. A nn. § 9545( b) , w hi ch t ook eff ecton J anuary16, 1996, appea r s on i t s fac e t o i m pos e a one - y eardeadl i ne i n al l cas es e x c e p t th o se f

a lli n g w ith in th re e c a teg o rie s (n o n e o f w h ich is appl i cabl e her e)

. N ev er t hel es s , as t he D i s t r i ctC our tobs er ved, 1se c o n d o r su b se q u e n t p e tit io n , sh a ll b e f iled w ith in o n e y e a r o f

th e d a te th e ju d g m e n t b e c o m e s f in a l, unl es s t he pet i t i on al le ges and the pet i t i onerpr oves th a t: (i) th e f

a ilu re to ra ise th e c laim pr evi ous l y w as t h e r es ul t of in ter f e re n c e b yg o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls w ith th e p re se n tatio n o f th e c laim in vi ol at i on of t he C ons t i tut i on orl aw s of t h i s C o m m onw eal t h or t h e C ons t i tuti on orl aw s of t he U ni t ed S t at es; (ii) th e f a c ts u p o n w h ich th e c laim is pr edi cat ed w ere unknow n t o t he pet i t i oner an d coul d nothave be en as cer t ai ned byt he exe r ci s e of due di l i gence ; or (i ii) the r i gh tasser t ed is a cons t it u ti o nal r i ght t hat w as r ecogn ized byt he Supr eme C our tof t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s o rt h e S u p r e me Co u r to f P e n n s y l va ni a a f

t e rt h e t i me per i od pr ovi ded i n t hi s s ect i on and has b e e n h e ld b yth a t co u rt to a p p ly r e t r o a c t i v e l y. 4 2 P a. C o n s. S tat

. A n n . § 9 5 4 5 (b)(1 ). 12 s tr ic t e n f o rc e m e n t o f

th e p ro v is io n d id n o t b e g in im m e d ia te ly. W el l befor e the ena ct m entof t hi s p r ovi s i on, t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our thad begun t o appl ya “r el axed w ai ver rul e” i n capi t al cas es . See C om m onw eal t h v. M cK enna, 383 A

. 2d 1 7 4 (P a . 1 9 7 8 ). In M c K e n n a , th e C o u rt sta ted th a t it b o re a “ d u ty t o t r ansc en d pr ocedur al rul es ” i n capi t al cas es beca us e of the “overw hel m i ng publ i c i nt er es t ” i n pr event i ng uncons t i tu t i onal ex ec u ti o n s. Id. at 18 0 -81

. A s w e h av e o b serv ed , M cK en n a f o r a t i m e “f i r m l yes t abl i s hed tha ta cl ai m of cons t i tut i onal err ori n a13 c a p ita l c a s e w o u ld n o t b e w a iv e d b ya f a ilu re t o p r e s e rv e it.” S zu ch o n v . L eh m an , 2 7 3 F

. 3 d 2 9 9 , 3 2 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). T w e n tyy e a rs la ter , o n N o v e m b e r 2 3 , 1 9 9 8 , the sta te s upr eme cour tchange d cour s e i n C om m onw eal t h v. A l br echt , 720 A

. 2 d 6 9 3 (P a. 19 9 8 ). A fter n o ti n g that ith ad lon g b ee n the C o u rt ’s

“‘ pr act i ce’ t o decl i ne t o appl yor di naryw ai verpr i nci pl es i n capi t al c a se s,” th e C o u rt sta ted th a t th is ru le h a d “ in e f f e c t, virtu a lly el i m i nat ed anys embl ance of fi nal i t yi n capi t al cas es . ” I d. at700. T he C our tconcl uded thatt he “be nef it s of r el axed w ai veratt he PC R A appel l ate s t age” w er e gr eat l yout w ei ghed byt he nee d for fi nal i t yand j udici al effi ci ency , and the C our tannounce d t hatt he re la x e d w a iv e r r u le w o u ld “ n o l o n g e r [ a p p ly] in P C R A a p p e a ls .” I d. O n D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 1 9 9 8 , the sta te s u p re m e c o u rt h e ld in C ommon wea l t h v . Pe t e r k i n , 7 2 2 A. 2 d 6 3 8 ( Pa

. 1 9 9 8 ) , t h a tt he PC R A t i m e bar appl i es t o capi t al cas es and i s not s uper cede d byt he r e l a x e d wa i v e r ru l e . F i n a l l y , o n M a r c h 2 , 1 9 9 9 , t h e s t a t e s u p r e me cour thel d unequi vocal l yi n C o m m onw eal t h v. B anks , 726 A

. 2d 374 ( Pa. 1999) , t hatt he PC R A t i m e l i m i t s ar e j ur i sd ict ion al and t hus not s ubj ect t o j udi ci al r el axat i on. A l t hough one mi ghtar gue t h a te i t h e rAl b r e c h to rP e t e r k i n ma r k e d t h e p o i n tw he n i tb e c a me fi r m l yes t abl i s hed thatt he P C R A t i m e l i m i t s w oul d be appl i ed l i t er al l yi n capi t al cas es , ouropi ni on in F ahyv. H or n, 240 F. 3d 2 3 9 , 2 4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ), im p lies th a t th e u n a v a ilab ili ty o f ju d icia lly c re a ted e x c e p tio n s to th e P C R A tim e lim its w a s le ss th a n p e rf e c tly cl earunt i l t he s t at e s upr eme cour tdeci ded B anks

. For pr es ent purpos es , h o w ever , i ti s notnece s s aryforus t o deci de w hether Al b r e c h t , P e t e r k i n , o rBa n k s ma r k e d t he c r i t i c a l p o i n ti n t i me becau se B ronsht ei n’s one-y ear deadli ne ex pir ed b efore t he earl i est of t he thr ee dat es . A s of O ct ober20, 1998 – t he one- y ear ann i versaryof the con cl usi on of dir ect revi ew i n B ronsht ei n’s cas e – B r ons ht ei n di d nothave fai r not i ce t hat he w oul d notbe gi ven the b e n e f it o f th e “ re lax e d w a iv e r” ru le a n d th a t h is f a ilu re to f

ile h is P C R A p e tit io n w ith in th e o n e -y e a r sta tu to ryd e a d lin e w o u ld re su lt in th e d ism iss a l o f

h is p e titio n . M o re o v e r, h o ld in g B ro n sh tein str ict lyto the o n e-y ea r de ad li n e w o u ld h av e d en ied h im the m o re l eni entt r eatm ent t hatt he s t at e court s had al l ow ed othercapi t al d ef en d an ts up to tha t p o int. W e thu s ag ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtT h e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt h a s a d o p ted su c h a ru le 2 i n at l eas t one anal ogous cont ext

. See C om m onw eal t h v. L ar k, 746 A

. 585 ( Pa. 2000) ( w hen gr ound for fi l i ng s econd PC R A pet i t i on ar i s es w hi l e fi r s tpet i t i on i s s t i l l pendi ng, pet i t i onerm ay fi l e s econd p eti ti o n w ith in 6 0 d ay s af ter fina l dec isi o n o n firstp eti ti o n ). 14 th a t th e sta te p ro c e d u ra l ru le a t issu e in th is c a se – th e ru le s trictly r equi r i ng a ca pi t al defe ndantt o fi l e a PC R A pet i t i on w i t hi n one y earaft ert he end of

di r ectr evi ew – w as not fi r m l yes t abl i s hed and re g u la rl yf

o llo w e d a t th e tim e in q u e s tio n . O u r a n a ly sis o f

th e q u e s tio n o f

p ro c e d u ra l d e f

a u lt w o u ld p ro c e e d a lo n g a d if

f e re n t p a th if

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt, w hen i tabandone d t he doct r i ne of “r el axed w ai ver , ” had a dopt ed w hatm i ghtbe t er m ed a “ t r ans i t i onal rul e, ” i

. e. , a rul e i m pos i ng a sp ec ial fil ing d ea d li n e f

o r t h o se ca ses i n w h ich a P C R A p eti ti o n er’s one- y earfi l i ng per i od expi r ed pr i or to the end of the “r el axed w a iv e r” e ra . A c c o rd in g ly , itw o u ld h a v e m a d e se n se f o r th e sta te 2 su p re m e c o u rt to h a v e a d o p ted a ru le re q u irin g su c h p e tit io n e rs to fi l e w i t hi n s om e spec i fi ed t i m e aft er t he t er m i nat i on of t he doctr i ne of “r el axed w ai ver . ” H ow ever , no su ch t r ans i t i onal rul e w as i nvoked byt he s t at e s upr eme cour ti n t hi s cas e, and none has been cal l ed t o ourat t ent i on. T he onl ys t at e l aw gr o u n d that w e may c o n sid e r in d e c id in g th e iss u e o f p ro c e d u ra l d e f

a u lt i n th is c a se is th e g e n e ra l o n e -y e a r d e a d lin e . B e c a u se th is ru le w a s n o t f irm ly estab li sh ed an d reg u larl yap p li ed o n the d ate w h en B ro n sh tei n ’s tim e ra n o u t, th e d o c trin e o f p ro c e d u ra l d e f

a u lt d o e s n o t ap p lyin t hi s cas e. W e thus tur n t o t he mer i t s of t he c lai m s on w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed r el i ef. III

. B ro n s h tei n arg u es (C lai m I) th at t h e tri al co u rt ’s j u ry i ns t ruct i ons vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s beca us e th e yp e rmi t t ed t he j ur yt o convi ct hi m of fi r s t
- degr ee m ur der on t he theoryof cocons pi r at orl i abi l i t yw i t houtfi ndi ng an es s ent i al el ement of t he offe ns e, vi z. , t hathe had the s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l

. U nder Penns y l vani a l aw , a defenda nt m ay notbe convi ct ed of f i r s t
- degr ee m ur derunder a co- cons pi r at or l i abi l i t y t heory unl es s t he j ur yfi ndsC om par e Tison v. A r i zona, 481 U

. S. 137, 158 ( 1986) 3 (“ m a jo r p a rticip a tio n in th e f e lo n yc o m m itt e d , co m b in e d w ith r eckl es s i ndi ffe r ence t o hum an l i fe, i s s uffi cien t t o s at i s fyt he [ E ig h th A m e n d m e n t] c u lp a b ility re q u ir e m e n t” ). W e do notappl yt he def er ent i al s t andar ds of r evi ew s etout 4 i n 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254( d) beca us e thi s cl ai m w as not“adj udi cat ed on th e m e ri ts ” b yth e s ta te s u p re m e c o u rt

. 15 t hatt he def

endantper s onal l yhad the sp eci fi c i nt entt o ki l l

. See Sm i t h v. H or n, 120 F. 3d 400, 410 ( 3d C i r . 1997)

. “T h e gener al rul e of l aw [i n Penns y l vani a] per t ai ni ng t o t he cul pab il i t yof c o n sp ira to rs is th a t ea c h in d iv id u a l m e m b e r o f th e c o n sp ira c yis cr i m i nal l yr es pons i bl e fort he ac t s of hi s c o - c o n s p i r at or s comm i t t ed i n fur t her ance of t he conspi r acy . ” C om m onw eal t h v. W ayne, 720 A

. 2d 456, 463 ( Pa. 1998)

. H ow ever , “[t ] o be gui l t yof fi r s tdegr ee m urder, each co-con spi rat or m usti nd i vidual l ybe fo un d to possess t he men tal stat e nec es s aryt o es t abl i s h fi r s tdegr ee mur der– the sp e c ifi c in ten t to k ill .” Id . at 4 6 4 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). T h is 3 pr i nci pl e w as set t l ed att he t i m e of Brons ht ei n’ s t r i al

. See C o m m o n w e a lth v . H u f

f m a n , 6 3 8 A .2 d 9 6 1 , 9 6 2 (P a . 1 9 9 4 ). In consi deri ng w hethert he juryi nst ruct i on s i n thi s case adequa t el yconvey ed t hi s cr i t i cal fea tur e of Penns y l vani a homi ci de l aw , w e foc us i ni t i al l yon t he l anguage t h at i s cl ai m ed t o be 4 err oneous , butw e m us t vi ew t hi s por t i on of t he i ns t ruct i ons “i n t he cont extof t he cha r ge as a w hol e. ” See Smi t h, 120 F

. 3 d at 411. “The pr operi nqui r yi s w hether t her e i s a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hat t he j ur yhas appl i ed the cha l l enged i ns t ruct i ons i n a w ayt hat vi ol at es t he C ons t i tut i on. ” I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal , ci t at i ons and i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) ; s ee Boy de v. C al i for ni a, 494 U

. S

. 3 7 0 , 3 8 0 (19 9 0 ). In th e p re s e n t c a s e , B ro n s h te in w a s c h a rg e d , in tera lia , w ith f i r s td e g r e e mu r d e ra n d c o n s p i r a c y t o c o mm i tmu r d e r . As we her eaf t er expl ai n, w hi l e the tr i al cour t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons r egar di ng t he fi r s tdegr ee mur derchar ge w er e s uch thatt he j ur ycoul d have c o n v icte d h im o f

th is ch a rg e w ith o u t f

in d in g th a t h e h a d a sp e c if ic i nt entt o ki l l G ut m an, t he cour t ’ s i ns t ruct i ons r egar di ng cons pi r acy t o comm i t m ur der and t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct of gui l t y o n that ch ar ge16 demonst r at e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat the j ur ym ade the r equi r ed fi ndi ng of spec i fi c i nt ent

. A ccor di ngl y , w e concl ude that anyerr or i n the fi rs tdeg ree m urder i nst ruct i on s w as harm l ess. T he tr i al j udge i ns t ruct ed the j ur y t hat B r ons ht ei n coul d be f o u n d g u iltyo f

f irst d e g re e m u rd e r b a se d o n a n yo f th re e se p a ra te th e o rie s. F irst, th e trial ju d g e c h a rg e d th e ju ry , B ro n sh tein c o u ld b e f o u n d g u il tyas a p ri n cipa l i f th e jury fo u n d that “e ac h an d ev ery e le m e n t o f

[ th e c ri m e ] w a s e s ta b lis h e d a s to h im s p e c if ic a lly . . . .” A pp. V , Pt

. 2 at 1692. T he t r i al cour tt hen corr ect l yi ns t ruct ed the j ury thatt he thr ee e l ement s neede d t o convi ctB r ons ht ei n fort he fi r s t
- degr ee m u r derof A l exande rG ut m an w er e ( 1) t hatG ut m an w as ki l l ed, ( 2) t hatt he def endantki l l ed h im , an d ( 3) t hatt he defe ndantdi d s o w i t h t he s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l

. I d. T h e trial j u d g e a lso in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t B ro n sh tein c o u ld be found gui l t yas an ac compl i ce of t he per s on w ho actual l yki l l ed G ut m an butt hat , i n or dert o do s o, t he j ur yw oul d have t o fi nd t hat B r ons ht ei n had the s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l

. T he j udge s t at ed: A d ef en d ant i s gui l t yof a c r i m e i f he i s an acc om pl i ce of

anotherper s on w ho com m i t s t he c ri m e . . . . H e i s an ac compl i ce i f and onl y i f w i t h t he i nt entof pr om ot i on or fac i l i t at i ng comm i s s i on of t he cr i m e he enco urages t he o t her person t o c om m i ti tor ai ds, a g re e s to a id o r a ttem p ts to a id th e o th e r p e rso n in p la n n in g o r c o m m ittin g it . . . . [ I ] n or dert of

i nd the def

endant gui l t

y of f i rs t

- degr ee m ur deras an accom pl ic e, you m us tf

i nd the C o m m o n w e a lth h a s p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e d e

fen da n t sh a re d

a sp e c ifi c in ten t to ki l lA l exande rG utm an w i th the act i ve pe r petr at or and encour aged or as s is t ed the act i ve per petr at orby com par abl e ove r tbehavi or . R emem berw hen w e t al ked aboutfi r s t
- degr ee m u rder ? T hat’ s the o ne thatrequi res t hat s pe c if ic17 int entt o ki l l ? Y es , i ti s pos s i bl e t o convi ctt he defe ndantas an ac compl i ce to tha teven i f he’ s not th e o n e w h o k ill e d M r. G u tm a n , b u t you ’d have to fin d th a t h e sh a re d

th a t sp e c ifi c in ten t to k ill A l exande rG utm an bef

or e you c an f

i nd hi m gui l t

y as an accom

pl i ce , and that h e ass i s t ed the ac t i ve p erp etrator b yso m e c o m p ara b le ov ert be h av ior. A p p . V , P t. 2 a t 1 6 8 9 -9 1 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Fi nal l y , t he tr i al cour ti ns t ruct ed the juryt hati tcoul d fi nd B r ons ht ei n gui l t y of t he var i ous cr i m es w i t h w hi ch he w as char ged undert he theoryof co- cons pi r at orl i abi l i t y . T he courts t at ed: Y ou m ayfin d the def

endant[gui l t y ] of ei t hert he c rim e o f m u rd e r, ro b b e ry o r th e f t as a c o n sp ira to r if y o u ’re sa tisf

ied b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t: F irst, that the d ef

en d an t ag ree d w ith this Jo h n D o e o r M r. X th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t w o u ld a id Jo h n D o e o r M r. X in co m m itti n g eit h er the c ri m e o f m u rde r, rob b ery and/or theft ; s econd, t hatt he def endants o agr eed w i t h t he i nt entof pr om ot i ng or f ac il i t at i ng t he comm i s s i on of t he cr i m e; t hi r d, t hat w h i l e the ag ree m en t r em aine d in ef fe ct, the c rim e o f m u rde r, r obberyand/ ort heftw as comm i t t ed by t hi s J ohn D oe o r M r. X ; and , f

o u rt h , that the c ri m e o f m u rde r, r obberyand/ ort heft , w h il e i tm aydi ffe rfr om t he a g re e d c ri m e , w a s c o m m itte d b yJ o h n D o e o r M r. X i n fur t her ance o f h i s and the def endant ’ s comm on s cheme. W h a t a m I sa y in g to y o u ? If th o se f o u r e lem e n ts have be en es t abl ishe d, t hen, i f y ou fi nd t hatt he d e f e n d a n t is g u iltyo f th e c o n sp ira c y , h e is a lso g u ilty o f a n y th in g th a t J o h n D o e o r M r. X d id in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

it . . . . [I ] f y ou fi nd t hos e thi ngs , t hen, h e can be f ound gui l t y of w hat ever act s t he co- cons pi r at or di d i n t he f u r t h e r a n c e o f

t h a ta g r e e m e n tr e a c h e d b e t we e n t h e m.T hes e s uppl ement al i ns t ruct i ons on fi r s t- degr ee mur der 5 m us tbe di s t i ngui s hed fr om t he s uppl emental ins t ruct i on on c o n s p ir a c y , w h ic h w e d is c u s s b e lo w . 18 Id . a t 1 6 8 7 -8 9

. U nfor tunat el y , t hi s i ns truct i on m i s l eadi ngl y s ugges t ed that B r ons ht ei n coul d be found gui l t yof fi r s t
- degr ee m ur der even i f he di d nothave th e spec i fi c i nt entt o ki l l

. A ccor di ng t o a l i t er al r eadi ng of t he i ns t ruct i on, t he j ur ycoul d fi nd B r ons ht ei n gui l t yof fi r s t
- degr ee mur deri f i t found that he had cons pi r ed t o comm i tt he ro b b e r y a n d th a t an o th e r c o n sp ira to r h a d k ill e d G u tm a n in fur t her ance of t he robbe r y . C om poundi ng t he err or , t he i ns t ruct i on w ent on t o s ay t hat i f t he j ur y found t hat t he four el ement s s etout above w er e es t abl i s hed, B r ons ht ei n w as “g ui l t yof anyt hi ng t hat J o h n D o e o r M r. X d id in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

[ th e c o n s p ir a c y ].” W hi l e the i ns t ruct i ons on l i abi l i t yas a pr i nci pal or accom pli ce st res sed t he n eed to fi nd a speci fi c i ntentt o k i l l , t hese i ns t ruct i ons di d notcur e the def ecti n t he i n s t ruct i ons on coc o n sp ir a to r liab ili ty . A s th e D istric t C o u rt p u t it : “A re a so n a b le j ur ycoul d have unde r s t ood t he co- cons pi r at orl angu age t o be an a lte rn a te m e a n s to e s ta b lis h f ir s t d e g re e m u rd e r, sans a fi ndi ng of s p e c if ic in te n t to k ill.” ’ D is t. C t. O p . a t 2 7

. F o r sim ilar re a so n s, th e f law in th e c o -c o n sp ira to r liab ili ty i ns t ruct i ons w as notadequa t el ycur ed bythe suppl ement al instruction s o n first -de g ree m u rde r th at w ere g iven , at t h e jury ’s r eques t , dur i ng i t s del i ber at i ons . A tt hatt i m e, t he t r i al j udge gave 5 t he j ur yt he fol l ow i n g “s um m aryon fi r s t
- degr ee mur der ”: “w hat s et s [fi r s t
- degr ee mur der ] apartfr om s econd- and thi r d- degr ee m ur deri s t hatel em en t of t he s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l ei t her per s onal l y , i f y ou fi nd t hat he di d t he ac t , oras a co- cons pi r at orof one w ho had the s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l [. ] ” A pp. V , Pt

. 2 at 1725. A lth o u g h th e se su p p lem e n tal ins tru c tio n s w e re a c c u ra te, th e yd id n o t s p e c i f

i c a l l y a d d r e s s t h e t h e o r y o f c o - c o n s p i r a t o r l i a b i l i t y. “La n g u age thatm er el ycontr adi ct s and does notexpl ai n a cons t i tut i onal l yi nfi r m i ns t ruct i on w il l n o ts uffi ce t o abs ol ve the i nfi r m i t y . A r evi ew i ng cour t has no w ayof know i ng w hi ch of theT he j ur ys peci fi cal l yfound B r ons ht ei n gui l t yof cons pi r acy 6 t o comm i tmur d e r , a s wel l a s c o n s p i r a c yt o c o mmi tr o b b e r yand cons pi r acyt o comm i tt heft

. Si gni fi cant l y , t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct di d not 19 tw o irre c o n c ilab le in stru c tio n s the ju ro rs a p p lied in re a c h in g th e ir verdi ct

. ” F ranci s v. F rankl i n, 47 1 U

. S

. 30 7, 32 2 ( 19 85 ). S ee al so W h itn e yv . H o rn , 2 8 0 F .3 d 2 4 0 , 2 5 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). V iew in g a ll of t he fi r s tdegr ee mur deri ns t ruct i ons t ogether , w e co n cl ude that th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th a t th e ju ry , co n sis ten t w ith th e ir ter m s, c o u ld h a v e p ro c e e d e d o n th e in c o rre c t b e lief th a t a s p e c if

ic in ten t to k ill w a s n o t n e e d e d in o rd e r to c o n v ict B ro n sh tein o f firstdegr ee mu rde ron t he theoryof co- cons pi r at orl i abi l i t y . W e thus hol d t h at th e jur yw as i m pr oper l yi ns t ruct ed on the theoryof coc o n s p ir a to r l ia b ility. We f u r t h e r h o l d , h o we v e r , t h a t t h i s e r r o r wa s h a r ml e s s . As w e expl ai ned i n Sm i t h, 120 F. 3d at416- 17, an err orof t he type pr es enther e i s s ubj ect t o har m l es s err or anal y s i s . “I n a col l at er al pr ocee di ng, t he s t andar d forhar m l es s nes s i s ‘ w hether t he err orhad s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous eff ectori nfl uence i n determ i ni ng t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct

. ’ ” I d. at 417 ( quot i ng C al i for ni a v. R oy , 519 U

. S. 3, 5 ( 1996 ) (q u o ti ng B r echtv. A br ahamson, 507 U

. S. 619 at637 ( 1993) )

. I n Sm i t h, w e el abor at ed: T h e S u p rem e C o u rt h as he ld th at if a ha b ea s co u rt “i s i n gr ave doubtas t o the harm less s nes s of an err or , ” hab ea s rel i ef mustbe gr ant ed. O ’ N eal v. M cA ni nch, 513 U

. S. 432, 437 ( 1995)

. T hu s, if t he cour tconcl udes fr om t he r ecor d t hat t he err orhad a “s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous eff ectori nfl uence ” on the ver di ct , or i f i ti s i n “gr ave doubt ” w hethert hati s s o, t he err or cannot be deemed har m l es s . See R oy , 519 U .S . a t 5

. 1 2 0 F .3 d a t 4 1 8 (p a ra lle l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). H ere, the j ur y ’ s ver di ctfi ndi ng B r ons ht ei n gui l t yof cons pi r acyt o comm i tm ur derconvi nces us t hatt he error i n t he i ns t ruct i ons on co- cons pi r at orl i ab i l i tyw as har m l es s . A ft ers t at i ng 6“lum p ” the o b ject of fe n ses to g ethe r: Cou r t Cl e r k : H ow s ay y o u o n 3279- 93. 5,

sec o n d co u nt , cr i m i nal c o nspir acy , c o n sp ira c y to co m m itm u rde r? P r e s i d i n g J u r o r : G u i l t y. C ou rtC l erk: H o w say y ou on con spi racyto

c o m m i tt o r o b b e r y? P r e s i d i n g J u r o r : G u i l t y. C o u rt C ler k : H o w sa y y o u o n c o n sp ira c yto

c o m m it th e f

t? P r e s i d i n g J u r o r : G u i l t y. A pp. V , Pt

. 2 at1747. 20 that B ron sh tei n w as c h arg ed w ith co n sp ir ac yto co m m itm u rde r, r obberyand theft , t he tr i al j udge s t at ed: [I ] n or dert o fi nd t he def endantgui l t yof cons pi r acy t o co m m i tanyon e of t ho se or al l of them , y ou m ust be s at i s fi ed i ni t i al l yt hatt he tw o el em en ts of a c o n sp ira c yh a v e b e e n p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. W hatar e they ? F i r s t , t hatt he def endant a g re e d to a id a n o th e r p e rso n . T h e C o m m o n w e a lth m er el ydefi nes t hat per s on ori dent i fi es t hatper s on as J ohn D oe or M r . X , m eani ng t hey don’ tknow w ho i ti s. T hat th e def

endantagr eed t o ai d anotherper s on, w hoeveri t w as , i n t he pl anni ng orcomm i s s i on of t he cr i m es of m ur der , r obbery or t heft ; and, s econd, t hat t he def endantdi d s o w i t h t he i nt entof pr om ot i ng or fa ci l i t at i ng comm i s s i on of t he cr i m es of m ur der, ro b b e ry a n d /o r t h e f

t. T h o s e a re th e tw o e le m e n ts

.B r ons ht ei n cont ends thatt hes e i ns t ruct i ons “l um ped 7 t ogether t he t hr ee offe ns es of m ur der , r obbery and t heft and cr eat ed a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hatt he j ur yw oul d convi ct [hi m ] of cons pi r acyt o comm it al l t hr ee of fens es m er el ybeca us e he cons pi r ed t o comm i tone of them and K ar l i t s ky[orw hoevert he s e c o n d i n d i v id u a l a t th e s to re w a s ] t h e n c o m m itte d th e o th e rs .” B r ons ht ei n’ s B r . at 58. I n ot herw or ds , B r ons ht ei n ar gues t hatt he ju rym ig h t h a v e u n d e rsto o d th e in stru c tio n s to m e a n th a t th e yc o u ld fi nd B ron sht ei n gui l t yof cons pi r acyt o comm i tm ur deri f t hey found m er el y t hatB r ons ht ei n i nt ent i onal l yai ded i n pl anni ng or ca rry ing o u t a t h ef

t. S u ch a read ing o f t h e ins tru cti o n s is co n tr ary t o comm on s ens e and, in o u rvi ew , unl i kel y , butbeca us e the tr i al j udge gave t he s uppl ement al i ns t ruct i ons di s cus s ed above , w e nee d notdeci de w hethert hes e i ns t ruct i o n s s t andi ng al one w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl ish har m l es s err or . W e not e that , al t hough t he D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t th e e rro r in th e c o -c o n sp ira to r liab ili ty i ns t ruct i ons w as nothar m l es s , t he D i s t r ict C our tdi d notcons i der th e im p a c t o f

th e su p p lem e n tal in stru c tio n s o n c o n s p ira c yto c o m m it m u rd e r t h a t w e re g iv e n d u ri n g th e ju ry d e lib e ra tio n s . 21 Id. at16 84 -85. T he m ostreas on able i nterpret at i on of these i ns t ruct i ons i s t hat , i n or der t o fi nd B r ons ht ei n gui l t y of m ur der , t he j ur yhad t o fi nd thathe had “ t he i nt entof promot i ng orfac i l i t at i ng c o m m is s io n o f

th e c ri m e [ ] o f

m u rd e r.” 7
T hi s poi nt w as dr i ven hom e w i t h t he su p p l ement al i ns t ruct i ons on cons pi r acyto comm i tm ur dert hatt he courtgave d u rin g th e ju ryd e lib e ra tio n s. A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s n o ted , this i s the p ointi n a tr i al w hen “[o]ne w ou l d exp ect m ostof [ a j ury ’s ] ref lec tio n a b o u t th e m ea n ing o f th e ins tru cti o n s to o cc u r[.] ” F ra n c is v . F ra n k lin , 4 7 1 U .S . at 3 2 1 n .7 . T h e trial ju d g e in th is c a s e t o l d t h e j u r y: [I ] n or dert o fi nd t he def endantgui l t yof cons pi r acy t o c o m m i tm u r d e r , y o u m u s tb e s a t i s f i e d t h a tt wo el ement s of t he cons pi r acyhave be en pr oven bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt : Fi r s t , t hat the def endantagr eed to aid an o ther p erso n , n am ely , this Joh n D o e o r M r. X , i n e i t h e r t h e p l a n n i n g o r t h e c o mmi s s i o n o f t he22 c r i me o f mu r d e r . T h a t ’ s t h e f i r s te l e me n t

. He agr eed t o ai d another per s on i n ei t her t he pl anni ng or t he co m m i ssi on o f t he cri m e of m urder – fi rs t e lem e n t. Second, t hatt he def

endantdi d s o w i t h the int entof pr om ot i ng or fac i l i t at i ng t he comm i s s i on of the crim e o f m u rde r. Id . a t 1 7 3 3 -3 4

. A f ter re c e iv in g these i ns tru c tio n s, th e ju ryf o u n d B ro n sh tein g u iltyo f c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it m u rd e r. In re tu rn in g th a t v e rd ict, th e ju ry p re su m a b ly f

o llo w e d th e c o u rt’s in stru c tio n s re latin g to that o ff en se, see W ee k s v . A n g elon e, 52 8 U

. S

. 2 2 5 , 2 3 4 (20 0 0 ), and t her efor e t he j ur y m us thave f ound t hatB r ons ht ei n par t i ci pat ed i n “the pl anni ng ort he comm i s s i on of t he cr i m e o f m u rde r ” and t hathe “di d s o w i t h t he i nt entof pr om ot i ng orfac i l i t at i ng t he com m i ssi on of the cri m e of m urder. ” In ot her w ords, t he jur ym ust h av e f o u n d that B ron sh tei n h ad the s p ec ifi c inten t t o k ill. It fol l ow s thatt he err ori n t he i ns t ruct i ons on t he theory of cocons pi r at orl i abi l i t ycannothave aff ect ed t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct on t he char ge of fi r s t
- degr ee m ur der

. E ven i f t he j ur ybas ed thatver di ct o n t he theoryof co- cons pi r at orl i abi l i t y , and eve n i f t he j ury p roc ee d ed o n the e rron eo u s b eli ef that this th eo ryd id n o t r eq u ir e pr oof of a sp ec if

i c i nt entt o ki l l , t he j ur y ’ s gui l t yver di cton t he char ge of cons pi r acy t o comm i t m ur ders how s t hatt he j ur yfound th a t B ro n s h te in h a d th a t in te n t. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n W ayne, 720 A

. 2d 456 ( Pa. 1998) , i s i ns t ruct i ve. I n W ayne, t he C our tconcl uded th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s n o t p re

ju d ice d b yh is c o u n se l’s f a ilu re to o b ject t o juryinstruction s tha t, li k e the o n es h ere , p erm itted th e jury t o convi cthi m of fi r st- d eg r ee mur deras a co- cons pi r at orw i t hout fi ndi ng t hathe had the s peci fi c i nt ent t o ki l l

. See W ayne, 720 A

. 2d at 465. T he C our tr eac hed thi s concl us i on beca us e the def endant w as al s o convi ct ed of cons pi r acy t o comm i tm ur der

. See i d. T he C our texpl ai ned: A c o n sp ira c yto k ill p re su p p o se s th e d e lib e ra teB ycontr as t , i n C om m onw eal t h v. H uffman, 638 A

. 2d 961, 8 963 ( Pa. 1 9 9 4 ), t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tfound t hatan err ori n t he j ur yi ns t ruct ions s i m i l art o t he one i n W ayne ( and the one her e) w as nothar m l es s . H ow ever , i n t hatcase the defe ndant w as convi ct ed of c ons pi r acyt o comm i t bur gl ary butnotcons pi r acy t o c o m m i tm u r d e r . S e e W a yn e , 7 2 0 A

. 2 d a t4 6 5 n . 7

. O b v i o u s l y, c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it b u rg lar y , u n lik e c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it m u rd e r, d o e s n o t r e q u ir e p ro o f o f a n in te n t to k ill. 23 pr emedi t at ed s har ed

sp e c if ic in ten t to c o m m it m urder.

. . . In t h i s case, t he co nspir acyw as a cons pi r a c yt o k i l l

. Th e c o n s p i r a c yh a d o n l yo ne obj ect , t he del i ber at e dec i s i on t o take a l i fe. O nce t hi s j ur y d eter m i ned thatappel l antw as gui l t yof c o n s p i r a c y, g i v e n t h e s o l e o b j e c t o f t h a tc o n s p i r a c y, the onl y l ogi cal concl us i on t o r eac h i s t hat t hi s jury al s o det er m i ned, b ey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , t hat a p p e llan t p o ss e ss e d th e sp e c if ic in ten t to k ill

. I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )

. See al s o C om m onw eal t h v. B ai l ey , 344 A

. 2d 869, 877 n. 16 (P a. 1975) ( “A cons pi r acyt o comm i tm ur der w oul d nece s s ar i l yi ndi cat e t hat t he ki l l i ng w as ‘ w i l l ful , del i ber at e, and pr emedi t at ed. ’ ”) ; C om m onw eal t h v. St ei n, 585 A

. 2d 1048, 1 0 5 0 n .6 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 19 9 1 ) (“ [ T ]h e ‘in ten t’ e lem e n t re q u ire d to be pr oven byt he C om m onw eal t h i s t he s ame foracc om pl i ce liab ili tya s f

o r c o n sp ira c y .”). W e a g re e w ith th is a n a ly sis a n d h o ld 8 t hatt he err ori n t he i ns t ruct i ons on co- cons pi r at orl i abi li tyw as har m l es s undert he s t andar d ap pl i cabl e i n a fe der al habea s p ro c e e d in g . B r ons ht ei n cont ends t hatourdeci s i on i n Sm i t h s how s t hat W a yn e “ d o e s n o t c o n tro l h e re ,” B ro n sh tein ’s B r. a t 5 7 , b u t S m ith is r ea d il yd ist ing u isha b le. T h ere , the co n sp ir ac yinstruction s w ere s o ambi guous t hatt heycr eat ed the r eas o n ab le l i kel i hood t hatt he j ur yconvi ct ed the def endant o f co ns pi r acyt o comm i tm ur der w i t houtfi nd ing tha the had the i nt entt o ent eri nt o t he cons pi r acy t o comm i tm ur der

. See Sm i t h, 120 F. 3d at412- 13. Fur t her m or e, t he tr i al co ur t ’ s at t empt t o expl ai n t he ambi guous i ns t ruct i ons actu all y m ade mat t er s w or s e: i t“conve y ed the i m pr es s i on t hat24 Sm i t h w as cr i m i nal l yl i abl e forcons pi r acyt o comm i tm ur deri f he in ten d e d to e n ter in to a c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it robb ery [. ] ” I d. at 413 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )

. I n s hor t , i n Sm i t h, unl i ke W ayne ort he pr es entcas e, i t w as r eas onabl y l i kel y t hatt he j ur ydi d notfi nd t hat th e d e f e n d a n t h a d th e in ten t to e n ter in to a c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it m ur der , i

. e, a s peci fi c i nt entt o ki l l

. H er e, as w e have expl ai ned, t he s uppl ement al i ns t ruct i ons w er e very cl eari n t el l i ng t he j ur yt hat i tcoul d notfi nd B r ons ht ei n gui l t y of conspi r acy t o comm i tm ur der un l ess i tfou nd t hat he had t hat i ntent

. F or t hese reasons, w e m ust re v e rse th e d e c isio n o f th e D istric t C o u rt in so f a r a s it re late s to B ro n s h te in ’s f

ir s t- d e g re e m u rd e r c o n v ic tio n .

I V. W e now addr es s B r ons ht ei n’ s ar gum ent ( C l ai m I X ) t hatt he t r i al cour tvi ol at ed hi s r i ght t o due pr oces s byfai l i ng t o i ns t ructt he j ur y t hat underPenns y l vani a l aw a def endantw ho i s convi ct ed of first -de g ree m u rde r m u st r ec eive eith er a sen tenc e o f d ea th o r a s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i t houtt he pos s i bi l it y o f par ol e. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatt hi s cl ai m has m er i t

. O n ap p eal , t he Co mm o n we a l t h c o n t e s t s t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s h o l d i n g o n t wo g ro u n d s . A

. T h e C o m m o n w e a lth ’s f irst a rg u m e n t, as w e u n d e rsta n d it, i s t hatSi m m ons v. Sout h C ar ol i na, 512 U

. S

. 154 ( 1994) , t he sem i nal S up rem e C ou rt case on w hich B ronsht ei n’s cl ai m is p re d ica ted -- is in a p p lica b le b e c a u se S im m o n s d o e s n o t ap p ly r etr oact i vel yt o cas es i n w hi ch di r ectr evi ew ended pr i ort o t hat d ec isi o n . S ee O ’D ell v . N ethe rl an d , 5 2 1 U

. S

. 1 5 1 (19 9 7 ). H ow ever , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yr ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent b e c ause S i m m on s w as deci ded l on g b efore t he judgm ent i n B r ons htei n ’ s cas e bec ame fi nal forr etr oact i vi t ypurpos es on O ct ober27, 1997, t he dat e w hen the S u pr eme C our tdeni ed cert i or ar i

. See B ear d v. B anks , 124 S. C t. 2 5 04, 2510 ( 2004) (“ S tate c o n v ictio n s a re f in a l ‘f o r p u rp o se s o f

re tro a c tiv itya n a ly sis w hen the ava il ab il ityof di r ectappea l t o t he s t at e court s has been ex h au sted an d the tim e f o r fil ing a p eti ti o n fo r a w ri t of ce rt iorari has el aps ed ora t i m el yfi l ed pet i t i on has been f i nal l ydeni ed. ’ ”)25 (c itatio n o m itt e d ). A c c o rd in g ly , the C o m m o n w e a lth ’s a rg u m e n t is m e ri tle s s . B

. T he C om m onw eal t h’ s r emai ni ng cont enti on i s t hatt he pr os ecut i on ’s a r gum ent s and the t es t i m onyt hati tel i ci t ed att he p en alt yp h ase d id n o t pu t th e issu e o f B ron sh tei n ’s fu ture danger ous nes s ati s s ue i n t he w ay neede d t o t r i ggerSi m m ons and t he s ub s e qu e ntr e l a t e d c a s e s of Sha fe r v. Sou t h Car ol i na , 53 2 U. S. 3 6 (20 0 1 ), an d K ell yv . S o u th C aro li n a, 53 4 U

. S

. 2 4 6 (20 0 2 ). B e c a u se th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt d id n o t ad ju d ica te th is c la im o n th e m e ri ts , th e s ta n d a rd s o f re v ie w s e t o u t in 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254( d) ar e i nappl i cabl e. Fur t her m or e, b eca us e t he C o m m o n w e a lth d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t eith e r S h a f e r o r K e lly announce d “new rul es ” w i t hi n t he meani ng of Teague v. L ane, 489 U

. S. 288 ( 1989) , w e nee d notand do notdeci de w h ethers uch an ar gum entw oul d have mer i t , s ee H or n v. B anks , 536 U

. S. 266, 271 (2 0 0 2 ), an d w e c o n sid e r S h a f e r a n d K e llyto b e a p p lic a b le in th is a p p e a l. In S im m o n s , the p rose cu tor ex p li cit lyarg u ed that the ju ry s houl d i m pos e a de ath s ent ence i n or der t o pr ot ect s oci ety fr om t he defe ndant

. T he pr os ecut or s t at ed thata dea t h s ent ence w oul d be “a r es pons e of s oci etyt o s om eone w ho i s a thr eat ” and w oul d be “a n a c t o f se lf -d e f e n se .” 5 1 2 U .S . at 1 5 7 . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t u n d e r th e se c irc u m st a n c e s th e trial ju d g e w a s re q u ire d to in stru c t th e ju ryth a t th e d e f e n d a n t, i f n o t se n ten c e d to d e a th , w o u ld have r ece i ved a sent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i t houtt he pos s i bi l i t yof par ol e. T he pl ur al i t y opi ni on s t at ed t hat“w her e the d e f e n d a n t’s f

u tu re d a n g e rousness is a tis s ue , an d sta te la w p ro h ib its t he def endant ’ s r el eas e on par ol e, due pr oces s r equires t hatt he s e n ten c in g ju ry b e in f

o rm e d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t is p a ro le in e lig ib le .” I d. at156 ( emphasi s added)

. H ow ever , as w e not ed i n R om pi l l a v. H or n, 355 F. 3d 233, 2 6 5 (3d C i r . ) , cert

. gr ant ed, 125 S. C t

. 27 ( 2004) , J us t i ce O ’ C onnor ’ s contr ol l i ng concurr ence m aybe r ead a s adopt i ng a nar r ow erhol di ng, namel y , t hatt he di s pos i t i ve ques t i on i s notw hethera def

endant ’s f

u tur e dange r ous i s “ati s s ue” but w h ethe r “ th e prosecu t i on argu es thatt he def endantw i l l pos e a th re a t to s o c ie ty in th e f u tu re .” 5 1 2 U .S . a t 1 7 7 (O ’C o n n o r, J .,26 concurr i ng i n t he j udgm ent )

. See al s o Shafer , 532 U

. S. at49. A s w e al s o obs er ved i n R om pi l l a, 355 F. 3d at266, t he hol di ng i n Si m m ons w as ar guabl y br oadene d i n K el l y . T her e the pr os ecut ors t at ed i n hi s penal t yphas e openi ng: “I hope y ou never i n y our l i ves agai n have t o exper i ence w hat y ou ar e e x p erie nci ng r i ghtnow . B ei ng s om e thi r t yfee taw ayfr om s uch a pe r s on. M ur der er . ” 534 U

. S. at248. T he pr os ec u ti on t hen pr es ent ed evi dence t hatw hi l e i n pri son, K el l yhad made a kni fe, had a ttem p ted to e sc a p e f

ro m p riso n , an d h a d p lan n e d to h o ld a f e m a le guar d as a hos t age. See i d. T he s t at e al s o br ought out evi dence of “K el l y ’ s s adi s m atan ea r l y age, and hi s i ncl i nat i on t o ki l l any one w h o rub b ed h im the w ron g w ay . ” Id

. at 24 8 -49 (cit ati o n o m itted). D ur i ng i t s cl os i ng ar gum ent , t he s t at e r efe r r ed t o K el l yas “the but cherof B at es bur g, ” “Bl oodyB i l l y , ” and “B i l l y t he K i d. ” I d. at 2 4 9 -50

. In ad d it ion , the pro sec u tor told the jurythat “K ell yd o esn ’t have a ny m ent al i l l nes s . H e’ s i nt el l i gent

. . . . H e’ s qui ck- w i t t ed. D o e s n ’t th a t m a k e s o m e b o d ya littl e m o re d a n g e ro u s . . . . [ D ]o e s n ’t th a t m a k e h im m o re u n p re d ic ta b le f o r [ th e v ic tim ] .

. . . m ur der er s w i l l be murde r er s . A nd he i s t he col d- bl ooded one r i ght o v e r t h e re .” Id . a t 2 5 0

. T he K el l yC our tconcl uded thatt he tr i al j udge had a n o b li g ati o n to g ive a p aro le i n eli g ibil ity in stru cti o n . T h e C o u rt s t at ed that“[t ] he pr os ecut orac ce n tuat ed the cl eari m pl i cat i on of futu re d a n gerousn ess r ai sed byt he ev i den ce and placed t he case w ith in the f

o u r co rne rs of

S im m o n s. ” Id

. at 25 5

. T h e C o u rt obs er ved that “[e ] vi dence of fut ur e danger ous nes s underSi m m ons i s evi dence w i t h a t endenc yt o pr ove danger ous nes s i n t he futur e; its re lev a n c e to th a t p o in t d o e s n o t d isa p p e a r m e re ly b e c a u se it m i ghts uppor tot her i nfer ence s or be desc r i bed i n ot hert er m s . ” I d. at254. T he C our t al s o acknow l edged t hat “i t m ay w el l be t hatt he e v id e n c e in a su b sta n tia l p ro p o rtio n , if n o t all, ca p ital c a se s w ill s how a def

endantl i kel yt o be dange r ous i n t he futur e. ” I d. at254 n .4 . B u t th e C o u rt d e c lin e d to d e c id e w h e th e r a d e f e n d a n t is en ti tl ed to a p aro le ineligibil ity instruction “w h e n th e S tat e’s evi dence s how s futur e danger ous nes s butt he pr os ecut ordoes not ar gue i t

. ” I d. I n t he pr es entcas e, t he pr os ecut i on notonl yput27 B r ons ht ei n’ s futur e dange r ous nes s “at i s s ue” but“ar gue[d] t hatt he defe nd ant [w ou l d] pose a thr eatt o societyi n the futur e. ” S i m m on s, 5 1 2 U

. S

. at 17 7 (O ’C o n n o r, J. , co n c u rr in g in the jud g m en t)

. D ur i ng i t s cl os i ng ar gum ent at t he penal t y s t age, the p rosec ut or m ade the foll ow i ng st at em ents : L a d ies a n d g e n tlem e n , th e m e d ica l te stim o n y in th is cas e w as s i gni fi cantbeca us e i t t el l s y ou s om ethi ng a b o u t th e p s y c h e o r p e r s o n a o f th is m a n . He c a n ’t con f orm t o w ha tis requi red i n societ y. T he d octors h a v e t o l d y o u th a t h e ’s a n ti- s o c ia l. H e ’s p ro n e to lyin g . H e ’s p ro n e to s te a lin g . He’s pr one t o l i vi ng a l i f e of cr i m e. W h atev er the see d s w ere that g o t h im there , they ’re pl ant ed, and t hatt r ee ha s gr ow n. H e’ s gr ow n i nt o a t w enty - t w o- y ear -old per s on now r egar dl es s of how t he s eeds w er e pl ant ed. You h a v e t o t a k e a l o o k a t wha t e f f e c t t h at has had and w hat effect i t had at t he t i m e he co m m i t t ed these c ri m e s . The doct ors have told yo u he’s a m an that c a n ’t c o n fo rm to th e n e e d

s o f so c iety

. A p p . V I at 19 0 9 -10 (em p h asis ad d ed ). E ven w i t houtcons i der i ng “the medi cal t es t i m ony ” t o w hi ch t he pr os ecut orr efe r r ed, i ti s evi dent t hatt hes e comm ent s , al t hough m or e cl i ni cal t han thos e i n Si m m o ns , convey ed the mess age that B ro n sh tein p re se n ted a th re a t o f f u tu re law les sn e ss . W e a g re e w ith t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s evaluat i on of these com m ents : [ T ]he r eferences t o B ronsht ei n’s i nab i l i t yto

‘ conform t o w hat i s r equi r ed i n s oci ety ’ and the fa ct t hathe w as ‘ ant i

- s oci al , ’ i n t he cont extof t he pr es ent a n d th e f

u tu re b yre f

e re n c e to w h a t B ro n sh tein is “goi ng t o” and “ pr one t o” do, m ake c l ea r th at t he C o m m o n w e a lth w a s s u g g e stin g to th e ju ryth a t it s houl d i m pos e the dea t h penal t ybecau s e of B r ons ht ei n’s inabi l i t yt o funct i on i n s oci etyi n t he28 futur e. T he pr os ecut or ’ s as s er t i on t hat[B r ons ht ei n] w a s “p ro n e to liv in g a life o f c rim e ,” w h e n p lac e d in t he contex t of

t he s t ar k choi ce of

l i fe i n pr i s on or death, w oul d s ugges tt o any juro r t hatpet i t i oner w oul d pose a d an gert o s oci etyi f he w as r el eas ed fr o m pr i s o n . Th e n o n e - t o o - s u b t l e i mpl i c a t i o n of th e s e a r g u m e n ts is th a t B ro n sh tien sh o u ld b e p u t to death beca us e i f he w er e everr el eas ed, he coul d not “conf or m t o t he nee ds of s oci et y , ’ and w as “goi ng to ” c o n tin u e “ liv in g a life o f c rim e ” a n d e n g a g in g in d a n g e ro u s , v io le n t c o n d u c t. D i st

. C t

. O p. at36 -37. T hu s, th e im po rtof the pen al t yph ase cl os i ng i n i t s el f i s cl earenough. W hen the “the m edi cal t es t i m ony ” t o w hi ch the pr os ecut or r efe r r ed i n t he cl os i ng i s al s o t aken i nt o acc ount , t he s i gni fi canc e of t he p r o s e c u t o r ’ s s t a t e me n t s b e c o me s e v e n c l e a r e r . At t he p e n a ltyp h a se , B ro n sh tein c a lled a p sy c h o lo g ist, G e ra ld C o o k e , to test ifyto “p sy ch o log ical m it igating fa ctors.” A p p . V I at 18 3 5

. D r. C o o k e tes tifie d th a t B ro n sh tein su f f e re d f ro m p a ra n o id p e rso n a lity di s or der , ant i

- s oci al per s onal i t y di s or der , and depr es s i on. See i d. at1838, 1840. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, t he C om m onw eal t h el i ci t ed f ro m D r. C o o k e a lit a n yo f d a n g e ro u s te n d e n c ies th a t p e rso n s w ith th e se d iso rd e rs o f

ten e x h ib it. T h e q u e stio n in g w e n t as f o llo w s: Q : O n e o f th e f

e a tu re s o f [ a p e rso n w ith a n a n tis oci al per s onal i t ydi s or der ] i s he tends t o be irre sp o n sib le; c o rre c t? A: W el l, o ne of t he fe at ur es of ant i

- s oci al p erso n a lityca n b e irresp o n sibil ity . I do n ’t k n o w if th a t’s n e c e ss a ri ly a c riter ia th a t f its hi m . H e fi t s a number of t he othercr i t er i a. Q : It c a n b e a n ti-so c ial b e h a v io r; c o rre c t? A : A b s o l u t e l y. Q : In c lu d in g c rim in a l ac tiv ity ; co rre c t?29 A : C o rre c t. Q : L y i ng? A : Y es. Q : St eal i ng? A : Y es. Q : Fi ght i ng? A : Y es. Q : B e in g v e rya g g re ss iv e ; co rre c t? A : Y es. Q : T h e yc a n b e p ro n e to b e in g irritab le; c o rre c t? A : Y es. Q : Pr one t o get t i ng r epea t edl y i nt o phy s i cal f ig h ts; c o rre c t? A : C a n b e . . . . Q : F a iled to c o n f

o rm to so c ial n o rm s; c o rre c t? A : T hati s t rue. Q : R epeatedl y c a n p e rf orm anti -s ocial act s; c o rre c t? A : Y e s . . . . Q : T h e y a lso tend to ex p ress n o rem o rse, do n ’t t h e y? A : T hat ’ s t rue.30 Q : N o re m o rse a b o u t th e e f f e c ts o f th e ir behavi oron ot herpeopl e? A : T heyoft en don’ t have i ns i ght t o t he eff ect s of t hei rbehavi or on t hemsel ves oron ot her peopl e. Q : In o th e r w o rd s, a lo t o f p e o p le w h o h a v e a n tis oci al per s onal i t y di s or der s can’ t pl aybyt he ru les in a c iv ili z e d so c iety ; co rre c t? A : T rue. Id . a t 1 8 5 5 -1 8 5 8

. T he pr os ecut o r t hen ques t i oned D r . C ooke r egar di ng B ron sh tei n ’s pa ran o id p erso n ali tyd isord er:

Q : D r. C o o k e , w ith re g a rd to th e p a ra n o id per s onal i t ydi s or der , t hey ’ r e al s o peopl e that c a n re a c t q u ick lyw ith a n g e r; c o rre c t? A : Y es. Q: And a r e l i k e l y t o c o u n t e r a t t a c k i f t hey fee l th re a ten e d ; co rre c t? A : T heyare li k ely to see t hemsel ves as bei ng t hr eat en ed , and manyof t hem sor tof fol l ow th e k in d o f

a tti tu d e th a t th e b e st d e f e n se is offe ns e. Q : I n otherw or ds , t hey ’ r e more l i kel yt o fee l th re a ten e d th a n th e n o rm a l p e rso n ; co rre c t? A : T rue, and t hat’ s w hat bei ng parano i d m eans. Q : B eca us e t hey ’ r e mor e l i k e l y t o f e el th re a ten e d , the y ’re m ore like ly to c o u n ter a ttac k b e c a u se o f th e th re a t th e yf e e l;31 c o rre c t? A : T hati s t rue. Q: T heycan be ar gr udges for a l ong t i me; c o rre c t? A : T rue. Q : A nd t heycan e ven gett o t he poi ntw her e t hey neverfor gi ve di ffe r ent insul t s peopl e have d o n e to th e m ; co rre c t? A : T rue. Q : T hey ’ r e vi ew ed as s ecr et i ve? A : Y es. Q : D evious? A

. S om et i m es. Q : Schemi ng? A : S om et i m es. Q: H ave gr eat di ffi cul t i es acc ept i ng s el fc r i t i c i s m? A : T hat ’ s t rue. Q : D r . C ooke, M r . B r ons ht ei n has a combi nat i on of t he t w o – par anoi d per s onal i t ydi s or derand ant i

- s oci al per s onal i t ydi s or der– does n’ the? A : A nd depr es s i on.

. . . Q: D oct or , i t ’ s cer t ai nl y a pot ent i al l y l et hal32 c o m b in a tio n o f

p e rso n a lity d iso rd e rs, isn ’t it? A : C oul d be. Id . a t 1 8 5 8 -1 8 6 0

. T he C om m onw eal th a l s o pr es ent ed r ebut t al evi dence t hroug h it s o w n m e ntal health ex pert , D r. T i m othyJ. M i chaels

. T h e C o m m o n w ea lth eli cit ed th e fo ll o w ing test im o n yfro m D r. M i chaels : Q : [W ] hati s y o u ragr eementordi s agr eement

w i t h t h e d i a g n o s e s whi c h [ Dr

. Coo k e ] h as m ade? A:

. . . I c e r t a i n l y a g r e e w i t h t he ant i

- s oci al p e rso n a lityd iso rd e r. W h a t th a t m e a n s is , this y oung m an has got t en i n t r oubl e thr oughout hi s l i fe

. H e does n’ tl earn byexper i ence . H e ’s im p u lsiv e . H e c o n tin u e s to g e t in tro u b le w ith in th e p riso n sy ste m . H e a c ts o u t, j us t i fi es hi s behavi or . So even aft erhe has been i nc a r c e r a t e d, t her e’ s ongoi ng diffi cult i es.

. . . W hen y ou’ r e ant i

- s oci al , y ou don’ tfol l ow t he rul es . Y ou don’ tlearn byexper i ence . Y o u think y o u ’re ri g h t and o ther p eo p le are w ro n g . . . . I a lso a g re e w ith th e p a ra n o id p e rso n a lity d is o rd e r. . . . H e’ s par anoi d. B as i cal l y , he’ s l ooki ng o ver h is sho u lder. H e d o esn ’ttru st pe o p le, d o esn ’t tr u s t m o s t p e o p le

. . . . T hi s combi nat i on of nott rus t i ng peopl e and t hen ac t i ng out , n o t f

ol l ow i ng t he rul es i s an e xp l os i ve c ombi na t i on i n m y op i ni on . . . . So33 I s ee thatas a ser i ous , verys er i ous behavi or al problem t hat this y ou ng m an h as.

. . . Q : D r . M i chae l s , w hat fi ndi ngs di d y ou m ake w i t h r egar d t o t hi s per s onal it y di s or deror these pe r s onal i t ydi s or der s w i t h havi ng r emors e? A : . . . I ndi vi dual s w ho ar e ant i

- s oci al don’ thave rem o rse. T h eyd o n ’tlearn

. T h ey ’re n o t sorry fort hei rbehavi or . T heydon’ tl earn fr om exper i ence . So t heydo t hi s overagai n. A n d in ste a d o f

b e in g re m o rse f

u l, unfor tunat el yt her e i s acc elerati on of b e h a v io r. I th in k I c a n g e t aw a yw ith it – ev en tho u g h y o u g e t c a u g h t. I ca n o u tsm art th e p e o p le [ .] A p p . V I a t 1 8 6 9 -7 1 , 1 8 7 4

. T a k e n to g e th e r, th e tes tim o n yo f D rs. C o o k e a n d M ich a e ls s ugges t ed the fol l ow i ng: t hatB ron sht ei n’ s “combi nat i on of per s onal i t y di s or der s ” coul d be “l ethal ” or“expl os i ve”; t hathe w as pr one t o l i e, s cheme, s t eal , fi ght , and ac tveryaggr es s i vel y ; t hathe w as m uch m or e l i kel y t han a nor m al per s on t o di s t rus t ot her s , bear grudges , fee l t hr eat ened, and r es pond w i t h a count er at t ack; t hathe w as unabl e t o “pl aybyt he rul es i n a ci vi l i zed s oci ety ”; t hathe w as pr obabl yr emors el es s , and unl i kel yt o l earn fr om exp eri ence , and thu s p ron e to c o m m it the sam e crim es “ o v er a g ain” ; and that there w o u ld p ro b a b ly b e a n “ a c c e le ra tio n ” o f h is a n ti- s o c ia l b e h a v io r. T he pr os ecut i on’ s penal t yphas e cl os i ng m us tbe vi ew ed as inco rpo rati n g thes e p o ints. A s n o ted, t h e p rose cu tor ask ed the ju ry t o r e c a l l “ t h e me d i c a l t e s t i mon y , ” r e f e r r e d t wi c e t o wha t“ t he doct or s ” had t ol d t he j ur y , and s um m ar i zed thatt es t i m onyas s ay i ng th a t B ro n sh tein is “ a n ti- s o c ia l,” “ p ro n e to liv in g a l i f e o f c ri m e ,” and “ca n’ t conform t o t he nee ds of s oci ety . ” In an yreal i st i c sense of t he conc ept , t he pr os ecut or “ar gue[d] t hat t he def endant[w oul d]T he l aw conce r ni ng § 9711( d) ( 6) i s noti n di s put e and, now 9 t hatt he s peci fi c l anguage us ed byt he tr i al cour thas been chal l enged, t her e i s no r eas on t o expe ct t hatt he s ame i ns t ruct i on w i l l be r epea t ed i f a ne w penal t y - phas e pr ocee di ng i s hel d. 34 pos e a thr eatt o s oci etyi n t he futur e. ” Si m m ons , 512 U

. S. at177 ( O ’ C onnor , J

. , concurr i ng i n t he j udgm ent )

. A nd i t g o es w i t hout s ay i ng t hat t he B r ons ht ei n’ s futur e dange r ous nes s w as putati s s ue w i t hi n t he meani ng of K el l y . I n t he w or ds of t hat deci s i on, “[t ] he p ros ecut or acc entuat ed t he cl earim p li ca ti o n o f f u ture danger ous nes s r ai s ed by t he evi dence

. ” 534 U

. S. at 255. W e thus reject t h e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s arg u m en t th at t h e p ro s ec u ti o n ’s pr es ent at ion att he pena l t yphas e w as i ns uffi ci entt o t r i ggert he o b lig a tio n im p o s e d b yS im m o n s , S h a f e r, a n d K e lly. H av ing co n side red an d rejected the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s ar gum ent s r egar di ng Si m m ons and i t s pr ogeny , w e have befor e us n o g ro u n d f

o r re v e rsin g th e o rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt in so f a r a s it hel d t hatB r ons ht ei n’ s death s ent ence i s u n co n st i tut i onal under t hos e pr ece dent s . I n l i ghtof our deci s i on on t hi s i s s ue, w e have no occa s i on t o deci de w hether , as t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d, t hats ent ence i s uncons t i tut i onal fort he addi t i onal r eas on t h at the j ur yw as i m pr oper l yi ns t ruct ed r egar di ng t he aggr avat i ng fac t or s et outi n 42 P a . C o n s. S tat. A n n . § 9 7 1 1 (d )(6 ) (c o m m iss io n o f h o m icid e w h ile p e rp e tra tin g f

e lo n y ) a n d th a t th e re w a s in su f f icie n t e v id e n c e to p rov e tha t fac tor. 9
V

. W e no w con si der t he clai m s r ai sed i n B ronsh tein ’s cr ossappea l

. A s not ed, B r o n sh tei n as ks us t o i s s ue a c er t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t yon t hes e cl ai m s , and w e m us t do s o i f he ha s m ade “ a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of t he deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght

. ” 28 U

. S. C

. § 2253( c) ( 2)

. O n t he mer i t s , ourr evi ew of t he dec i s i on of th e D istric t C o u rt is p len a ry , as th e D istric t C o u rt re lied e x c lu siv e ly on t he state c our tr ecor d and di d nothol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng. H arteyv . V au g h n , 1 8 6 F

. 3 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 1 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ). A.35 B r ons ht ei n ar gues that the pr os ecut i on vi ol at ed B at s on v. K entucky , s upr a, byexer ci s i ng a per empt or ychal l enge ba s ed on r el i gi on and ethni c b ackgr ound. D ur i ng col l ect i ve voi rdi r e, t he t r i al cour t as ked t he pr os pect i ve j ur or s w hether t hey had “ any m or al , r el i gi ous orot herethi cal bel i efs w hi ch w oul d pr event [th em ] fro m co n side ri n g th e im p o sit ion o f th e d ea th p en alt y [.]” B ronsht ei n’s A pp . II at29 3. T en o f t he 3 0 p rospec tiv e j urors – i ncl udi ng J an Ei del s on – r es ponded i n t he af fi r m at i ve. L at er , dur i ng i ndi vi dual voi rd ir e, defe ns e couns el as ked anotherpr os pect i ve j ur or , N anett e Phy l l i s H oni gm an, w hethers he w a s “ o f Je w ish h e r it a g e ,” a n d sh e re sp o n d e d th a t sh e w a s n o t. A pp . II at42 0-21. A ft er M s. H o n ig m a n w as di sm i ssed for cause on unr el at ed gr ounds , t he tr i al j udge r ai s ed the i s s ue w hether i tw as appr opr i at e t o as k pot ent i al j ur or s aboutt hei r r el i gi ons . I d. at421. T h e ju d g e su g g e ste d th a t su c h a n in q u iry w o u ld n o t b e re a so n a b le u n les s a ju ro r e x p re ss e d a n u n w ill in g n e ss to c o n sid e r a d e a th ver di ctforr el i gi ous r eas ons . I d. D efe ns e couns el expl ai ned that hi s onl y r eas on for doi ng s o “w oul d be for t he pos s i bl e B at s on i s s ues , i t ’ s w hethert he j ur orw as of t he s ame Je w i s h her i t age a s M r . B r ons htei n. ” I d. T he pr os ecut ors eems t o have t aken the pos i t i on t hatB at s on does not appl y t o per empt or y chal l enges bas ed o n re lig io n , w h ile d e f e n se c o u n se l an d B ro n s h tein h im se lf c o n ten d e d th a t strik in g a p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r b e c a u se th e p e rso n is J ew i s h w oul d be a chal l enge ba s ed on “na t i onal i t y ” or“r ace ” and w oul d t hus fal l w i t hi n B at s on. I d. at423- 24. T he t r i al j udge then s t a t e d t h a tJ u d a i s m i s “ a r e l i g i o n , i t ’ s n o ta n a t i o n a l i t y ” a n d r ul ed t hata per empt or ychal l enge ba s ed on J udai s m di d notpr es ent“a B at s on i s s ue. ” I d. at424- 25. H ow ever , beca us e the j udge thought t hatan i nqui r yi nt o a j ur or ’ s r el i gi on m i ghtbe j us t i fi ed fort he lim ited re a so n o f e x p lo rin g w h e th e r th e ju ro r w o u ld b e w ill in g to cons i dera dea t h sen te nce, t he j udge as ked couns el t o pr ovi de advanc e w arni ng befor e aski ng any ques t i ons al ong t hos e l i nes . I d. a t 4 2 5

. I m m edi at el yaft er t hi s excha nge, t he pr os ecut ors t at ed that he w ant ed t o as k M s . E i del s on aboutherr el i gi on “onl ybeca us e of th e e d u c a tio n a l b a c k g ro u n d ” n o te d in h e r in f o rm a tio n sh e e t, namel y , t hats he had w r i t t en thats he had at t ended a s chool cal l ed “Fr i ends C entr al

. ” A pp. I I at 426. T he tr i al j udge r es ponded that36 th is in q u iryw a s le g iti m a te b e c a u se “ it ca n n o t b e d isp u ted th a t if s om eone i s a Q uaker t heyhol d a r el i gi ous bel i ef thatw oul d pr event t hem, pr obabl y , fr om s er vi ng on t hi s j ur y . ” I d. W h en M s. E idelso n ca m e u p fo r i n d ividu al vo ird ir e a sh o rt t i m e l at er , t he tr i al j udge ques t i oned herfi r s t

. I n r es pons e t o t he c o u rt’s q u e stio n s, sh e sta ted th a t sh e c o u ld v o te to im p o se a d e a th p e n a ltyb u t th a t “ it w o u ld n o t b e a c o m f o rta b le th in g ” a n d “ w o u ld [not ] b e ea sy . ” A pp. I I at429, 435. She expr es s ed r es er vat i ons about b e i n g s e q u e s t e r e d f o r t h e t wo wee k s t h a t t h e t r i al w as expec t ed t o l as t , s t at i ng t hat s he “w oul dn’ t w ant t o be i n a s i tuat i on w h ere [sh e] co u ld no t h av e co n tact w ith [h er] su p p o rt sy stem [.]” I d. a t4 2 9

. Sh e a l s o s t a t e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h s h e was a g r a d u a t e of Fr i ends C entr al H i gh School , s he w as nota Q uaker

. I d. at437. Fi nal l y , w hen the j udge as ked herw h ethers he “w oul d have a ny t end encyt o b e bias ed o r pr ej ud i ced ag ai nst[B ronsh tein ] bec ause he i s a R us s i an- J ew , ” M s . E i del s on ans w er ed t hats he di d nott hi nk that sh e w o u ld and ad d ed : “W ell , I n ee d to l et y o u k n o w , m yd ad ’s par ent s came fr om R us s i a. ” I d. at439. D e f e n se c o u n se l q u e stio n e d E id e lso n n e x t. In re sp o n se to hi s ques t i oni ng, s he s t at ed thather“dad’ s pare n ts w er e R us s i anJ ew s ” a n d t h a th e rmoth e rwas J e wi s h

. App

. I I a t4 4 0

. T he p ro se c u to r th e n q u e stio n e d M s. E id e lso n b rie f lya n d in q u ire d o n ly w h ethe r, if t h e juryv o ted f o r th e d ea th p en alt yan d the ju rors w ere pol l ed, s he w oul d be abl e t o stan d u p i n open courtand s t at e that s he ha d v o ted to i m pos e thats ent ence . A pp. I I at443- 45. She ans w er ed i n t he af

fi r m at i ve. I d. at445. A ft er M s . E i del s on l eft t he cour t r oom , defe ns e co u n s el s t at ed thats he w as acc ept abl e, butt he pro sec ut orexer ci s ed a per empt or ys t r i ke aga i ns ther

. A pp. I I at445. D ef en s e couns el o b jec ted , c laim in g th a t th e p ro se c u tio n h a d e x e rc ise d th e strik e in vi ol at i on of B at s on , b u t the t r i al j udge r ej ect ed the obj ect i on w i t houtexpl anat i on. I d. at446. O n d ire c t a p p e a l, th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt f o u n d it u n n e c e ss a ryto re so lv e th e q u e stio n w h e th e r “ ‘R u ss ian -Je w ish ’ is an ethn ic classificati o n fo r t h e p u rpo ses o f a B atso n claim [.]” B ro n sh tein , 6 9 1 A .2 d a t 9 1 5 . F irst, th e C o u rt h e ld th a t B ro n sh tein37 “fa i l ed t o devel op a r ecor d s et t i ng fort h t he r ace orethni ci t yof t he r es tof t he veni r e ort he j ur or s eventual l yempanel ed as r equi r ed by [C om m onw eal t h v. Si m m ons , 662 A

. 2d 621 ( Pa. 1995) ]

. ” Second, t he C our ts t at ed: [T]he r ecor d r evea l s t hat t he pr os pect ive jur or equi vocat ed on t he deat h penal t y on m or al , r el i gi ous and phi l os ophi cal gr ounds and expr es s ed s er i ous re se rv a tio n s a b o u t se rv in g o n th e ju ryb e c a u se it w o u ld en tai l bein g sep ara ted f rom h er ‘su p p o rt gr oup’ dur i ng t he ant ici p at ed tw o w eeks of s eques t r at i on. . . . R eas ons s uch as t hes e have been found byt hi s cour tt o be a p roperbas i s for exer ci s i ng a per empt or ychal l enge. I d. Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r td i s c u s s e d Br o n s h t e i n ’ s c l a i m i n s o me d etail

. S ee A u g . 1 6 , 2 0 0 1 M em . at 2-8

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt expr es s ed di s agr eementw i t h t he s t at e cour t s on t hr ee gr ounds

. T he D i s t r i ctC our topi ned that“i ti s l i kel yt hat t he t r i al j udge w as w r ong on t he i s s ue of w hetherJ ew s w er e a c ogni zabl e gr oup under B a tso n .” Id . at 4

. T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso d isa g re e d w ith th e sta te s upr eme co u rt ’s vi ew t hatB at s on “r equi r es a def endant[t o] p rod u ce e vi dence of t he r ace of al l veni r eper s ons s t ruck byt he pr os ecut or , t he r ace of pros pect i ve j ur or s s t r i cken byt he def ens e, and the r aci al m akeup of t he fi nal j ur ys el ect ed. ” I d. at8. T he D istri ct C o u rt“re ad B atso n to b e fa r less e x ac ti n g in it s ev iden ti ary r equi r ement s ” and s t at ed that“ther e ar e manyevi dent i aryavenue s a p e t i t i o n e rm a y t r a v e l t o b o l s t e rh i s B a t s o n c l a i m s . ” I d

. F i n a l l y, the D istri ct C o u rt d is a g ree d w ith the s tat e su p rem e c o u rt ’s appr oach i n r ej ec ti n g B r ons ht ei n’ s cl ai m on t he gr ound t hatt he recor d revealed l egit im a t e groun ds on w hich t he st ri ke o f M s. E idelso n co u ld h av e b ee n b ase d

. Id. at 6. T h e D istri c t C o u rt w r ot e: B atso n req u ir es th e p rose c u to r t o rev ea l her act ual r e a s o n s f o rs t r i k i n g a j u r o r . W h e r e t h e p r o s ecut or has notdone s o, w hetheron herow n i ni t i at i ve or beca us e of the t r i al cour t ’ s rul i ng, an appe l l at e or38 habea s cour ts houl d notl at erdi vi ne re as ons t hat m i ghthave mot i vat ed the prose cut or , how ever t empt i ng t hatm aybe, and r egar dl ess of how a b u n d a n to rl o g i c a l t h e p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s ma ys e e m. Id

. (em p h asis in o ri g inal). T he D i s tr i ctC ourtnevertheless re jected Brons ht ei n’ s B at s on c laim o n th e g ro u n d th a t h e h a d f a iled to m a k e o u t a p rim a f a c ie cas e. T he C our tnot ed t hat “[t ] he onl y r ecor d evi dence pet i t i oner pointed to att r i al ” ori n t he fe der al habea s pr ocee di ng w as “the u n d isp u ted f

a c t th a t th e p ro se c u to r u se d a p e re m p to ryc h a llen g e to excl ude fr om t he j ur yt he onl y per s on i n t he venir e w ho s har ed pet i t i oner ’ s R us s i an- J ew i s h ance s tr y . ” A ug. 16, 2001 M em. at6- 7. T he D i s t r i ct C our t al s o not ed that“i tw as pet i t i oner ’ s couns el , not t he pr os ecut or , w ho as ked tw o j ur or s w hether they w er e J ew i s h” and t hat “[n] ot hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat e[d] t hat t he pr os ecut orw as i nt er es t ed i n w hethert he j ur or s s har ed a c om m on et h n ic her i t age w i t h t he def

endant

. ” I d. at7- 8. B e c a u se o n e o f th e g ro u n d s g iv e n b y th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt f

o r re jec tin g B ro n sh tein ’s c laim w a s h is f a ilu re to dev e l o p t h e r e c o r d i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h o n e o f t h a tCou r t ’ s p r i or d ec isi o n s, C o m m o n w ea lth v . S im m o n s, 6 6 2 A

. 2 d 6 2 1 (P a. 19 9 5 ), w e b e g i n b yd i s c u s s i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f p r o c e d u r a l d e f

a u l t

. We hol d t hatcons i der at i on of B r ons ht ei n’ s B at s on cl ai m i s notbarr ed for t w o r eas ons . Fi r s t , t he C om m onw eal t h has not ar gued t hatt he c laim is p ro c e d u ra llyb a rre d , an d w e a re n o t re q u ire d to ra ise th is i s s ue s ua s pont e. See Sm i t h v. H or n, 120 F. 3d at408- 09. Second, w e under s t and C om m onw eal t h v. Si m m ons t o r epre s entan in ter p re tatio n o f

w h a t B a tso n re q u ire s, n o t an in d e p e n d e n t sta te p ro c e d u ra l ru le. In C o m m o n w e a lth v . S im m o n s, th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our tacc ur at el ys um m ar i zed Bat s on’ s hol di ng as foll ow s: T o s us t ai n a p rim a fa c ie cas e of i m p rop er us e of perem ptor ychall eng es, a def end ant m us test abli sh t he fol l ow i ng: ( 1) the d ef endanti s a mem berof a cogni zabl e r aci al gr oup and the pr os ecut orexer ci s ed per empt or ychal l enges t o r emove m ember s of t he39 d ef en dant ’ s r ace fr om t he veni r e; ( 2) t he def endant ca n then relyo n the f

ac t th at t h e u s e o f p ere m p tory chal l enges per m i t s “thos e t o di s cr i m i nat e w ho ar e a m in d [ sic ] to d isc rim in a te; a n d , (3 ) th e d e f e n d a n t, t hr ough fac t s and ci r cumst ance s , m u str ai s e an i nfer ence t hatt he pr os ecut orexcl uded mem ber s of th e v e n ir e o n a c c o u n t o f th e irra c e . . . . 662 A

. 2d at631. T he C our tt hen cont i nued: This thi r d pr ong req u ir es de fe n d an t t o m ak e a rec o rd s peci fi cal l yi dent i fy i ng t he r ac e of al l t he veni r eper s ons r emoved byt he pr os ecut i on, t he r ace o f th e juro rs w h o serv ed an d the ra ce o f ju rors acc ept abl e t o t he C om m onw eal t h w ho w er e s t r i cken byt he def

ens e. Id . (em p h a sis a d d e d ). It th u s se e m s c lea r th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth v. Si m m ons pr ocedur al r equi r ement s r epr es ent an i nt erpr et at i on of B at s on, nota s t at e pr ocedur al rul e. W e t h e r e f

o r e p r o c e e d t o t h e mer i t s o f Br o n s h t e i n ’ s c l a i m. B e c a u se th is c laim w a s “ a d ju d ica ted o n th e m e rits” in sta te c o u rt, t he narr ow s t andar ds of r evi ew s etouti n 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254( d) ap p ly

. W e m u st th u s d ec ide w h ethe r th e state su p rem e c o u rt ’s “adj udi cat i on of t he cl ai m . . . r es ul t ed i n a dec isi on t hatw as c o n tra ry to , ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on o f , cle a rly es t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det er m i ned byt he Supr eme C our t of t he U n it ed S tat es.” 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). A stat e c o u rtad

jud icati o n is “co n tr ary to ” S u p rem e C o u rt pr ece denti f i tr es ul t s fr om t he appl i cat i on of “a rul e that contr adi ct s t he governi ng l aw s etfor t h” byt he Sup rem e C our tor i s i ncons i s t entw i t h a Supr eme C our tdeci s i on i n a ca s e i nvol vi ng
“ mat e r i a l l yi nd i s t i ng ui s ha bl e ” fa c t s . W i l l i a ms v. Tay l or , 52 9 U. S. 3 6 2 , 4 0 5 -0 6 (2 0 0 0 ). “ A sta te c o u rt d e c isio n f a ils th e ‘u n re a so n a b le appl i cat i on ’ p r o n g o n l y‘ i f t he courti dent i fi es t he corr ectgoverni ng ru le f ro m th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s c a se s b u t u n re a so n a b ly a p p lies it t o t he fa ct s of t he part i cul arcas e ori f t he s t at e courtei the r u n rea so n ab lyex tend s a leg al pr in ciple f rom the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s40 pr ece dentt o a new cont extw h ere i ts houl d notappl yor unr eas onabl yr efus es to ex t end the pr i nci pl e t o a new cont ext w her e i ts houl d appl y . ’ ” R i co v. L eftr i dge- B yr d, 340 F. 3d 178, 181 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). B e f o re a p p ly in g th e se sta n d a rd s to th e p re se n t c a se , w e n o te th a t w e a g re e w it h th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt c le a r l y m is in te rp re te d B a ts o n . Fi r s t , B at s on does noti nv ariabl ydemand com pl i ance w i t h t he pr ocedur al r equ i r e me n t s s e t o u t i n Commo n wea l t h v . Si mmon s , 6 6 2 A. 2d at 631

. I ti s not ew or t hyt hatB at s on di s cus s ed w hata cr i m i nal d efendantm us tdo t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e w i t houthi nt i ng th a t a d e f

e n d a n t m u s t alw a y s s a tisf ya n y th in g lik e th e rig id C om m on w eal t h v

. S i m m on s r equ i rem ents

. M ore i m po rt a n t, B at s on’ s s peci fi c exa m pl es of how a pri m a fa ci e ca s e maybe es t abl i s hed make i tcl eart hatt he C om m onw eal t h v. Si m m ons r equi r e me n t s n e e d n o t a l way s b e me t

. Ba t s o n s t a t e d t h a t “a

‘ pat t ern’ of s t r i kes agai ns tbl ack j ur or s i ncl uded i n t he part i cul ar ve ni r e mi gh tgi ve r i s e t o a n i nf e r e nc e of di s c r i mi na t i on . ” 47 6 U. S. at 97. I n ot her w or ds , a s t ar k pat t ern – s ay , per empt or i l y str i ki ng n u m ero u s A fr i can A m er i can j ur or s and no other s – coul d s uffi ce w ith o u t th e c rea ti o n o f a rec o rd re g ard ing “ th e rac e o f th e juro rs w ho s er ved and the r ace of t he j ur or s ac ce p tabl e t o t he [ p ro se c u tio n ] w h o w e re stric k e n b yth e d e f e n se .” C o m m o n w e a lth v . S im m o n s, 6 6 2 A .2 d a t 6 3 1 . B a tso n f u rth e r sta ted th a t a “p rose cu tor’s qu esti o n s an d stat em en ts d u ri n g v o ird ir e e x a m in a tio n a n d in e x e rc isin g h is c h a llen g e s m a ysu p p o rt o r re f u te a n in f e re n c e o f d isc rim in a to ryp u rp o se .” 4 7 6 U .S . at 9 7 . T h u s, in s om e ci r cumst ance s , s us pi ci ous ques t i oni ng, coupl ed w i t h s t r i kes t hats eem t o i m pl ement t he thrus to f the ques t i oni ng, m aybe e n o u g h . In sh o rt, a p rim a f a c ie c a se m a yb e e sta b lis h e d b y“ a ll re lev a n t circ u m sta n c e s.” Id . at 9 6 . W h ile th e f a c to rs n o ted in S im m o n s a re c e rta in lyre lev a n t, i n th e w o rd s o f th e D istric t C o u rt,

“ th e re a re m a n ye v id e n tiary av e n u e s a p e tit io n e r m a y tr a v e l to bol s t erhi s B at s on cl ai m s . ” A ug. 16, 2001 M em. at8. S e c o n d , the P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt c lea rly m i s i nt erpr et ed B at s on i ns ofar as i t r ej ect ed B r ons ht ei n’ s cl ai m on th e g ro u n d th a t th e re c o rd su g g e ste d leg iti m a te r e a so n s th a t c o u ld h av e m o ti v ated the p rose cu tor t o ex erc i se th e c o n test ed p ere m p tory41 c h a l l e n g e . Un d e r Ba t s o n , i f t h e o b j e c t i n g p a r t ye s t a b l i s h e s a p r i ma fac i e ca s e , t h e p a r t ye x e r c i s i n g t h e c h a l l e n g e mus ts t a t e i t s a c tu al r eas ons , and t he t r i al j udge m us t m ake a fi ndi ng r egard ing the chal l engi ng par t y ’ s m ot i vat i on. See 476 U

. S. at97- 98. In li g h t of

o u r co n clus ion that the s tat e su p rem e c o u rt m isi n terpreted B atso n , w e co n clud e th at the s tat e su p rem e c o u rt ’s d e c is io n f

a i ls to s a tis f

yth e s ta n d a rd s s e t o u t in 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ). T h e “ c o n tra ry to ” p ro n g is v io late d b e c a u se th e sta te s upr eme cour t“appl i e[d] a rul e thatcontr adi ct s t he governi ng l aw s etfor t h” byt he Supr eme C our t , W i ll iam s, 5 2 9 U

. S at405. A nd t he “u nreasonab l e app l i cat i on ” prong i s al so con t ravened becau se t he s t a t e s u p r e me c o u r td i d n o t“ i d e n t i f[ y ] t h e c o r r e c tg o v e r n i ng rule fro m the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s ca ses.” R ico, 3 4 0 F

. 3 d at 1 8 1

. It does notfol l ow , how ever , t hatB r ons ht ei n i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. A s t at e pr i s oner’s fe der al habea s pet i t i on m aybe gr ant ed “onl y on t he gr ound t hat he i s i n cus t ody i n vi ol at i on o f t he C o n s titu tio n o r la w s o r tr e a tie s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (a ). T h u s, if

a p e tit io n e r’s c u sto d yd o e s n o t in f a c t v io late fede r al l aw – i

. e. , i f t he pet i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s fai l even de novo r evi ew – t he pet i t i oneri s notent i t l ed t o habea s r el i ef r egar dl es s of t he c o rre c tn e ss o f

th e sta te c o u rt’s a n a ly sis o f th o se c la im s . T h is concl us i on fol l ow s natur al l yf r o m th e l o n g s t andi ng rul e thatfede r al cour t s w i l l notent er t ai n habea s pet i t i ons t o corr ecterr or s t hatdo notunder m i ne the l aw fu lnes s of a pe t i t i oner ’ s det ent i on. See M cN al l yv. H il l, 2 9 3 U

. S. 131, 135 ( 1934) ( err or s m aynotbe a ttac k e d o n o n e c o u n t o f in d ictm e n t w h e re se n ten c e w a s la w f u lly i m pos ed af

t erconvi ct i on on anoth ercount ) , overrul ed on other g rou n d s, P ey ton v . R o w e, 39 1 U

. S

. 5 4 (19 6 8 ). O urconcl us i on al s o fol l ow s natur al l y fr om t he l anguage of 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254( d)

. U ndert he “c ont r aryt o” pr ong of § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ), itis t h e s ta te s u p re m e c o u rt’s “ d e c isio n ,” n o t it s r e a s o n i n g , t h a t mu s tb e “ c o n t r a r yt o ” c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d S u p r e me Co u r tp r e c e d e n t

. As we p u ti ti n M a t t e o v . S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , S CI A lb io n , 1 7 1 F .3 d 8 7 7 , 8 8 8 (3 d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ) (e n b a n c ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ), the “ co n tr aryto” p ron g ap p li es w h en “S u p rem e C o u rt p r e c e d e n t r e q u i r e s t h e c o n t r a r y o u t c o me . ” L i kew i s e, ourdeci s i on i n W er t s v. V aughn, 228 F. 3d 178, 196- 97 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( quot i ngW e ther efor e have no need t o addr es s t he ques t i on w hether 10 B r ons ht ei n w oul d be enti tl ed t o r el i ef i f he ha d s how n t hatt he p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e a t is s u e w a s b a s e d o n “ re lig io u s a f f ilia tio n ,” s ee U nit ed S t at es v. D eJ es us , 347 F. 3d 500, 510 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( r es er vi ng deci s i on on ques t i on) , orethni ci t y . S ee R i co v. L ef tr idg e-B yrd, 34 0 F

. 3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 -84 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 42 O ’B rie n v . D u b o is, 1 4 5 F .3 d 1 6 , 2 4 -2 5 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 8 )) (e m p h a sis added) , gl os s ed the “cont r ary t o” l anguage as ent i t l i ng a pet i t i oner to reli ef o n lyif t h e p eti ti o n er “ s h o w s tha t ‘ S u p rem e C o u rt pr ece dentr equi r es an o u t c o me co n t r aryt o t hatr eac hed byt he relev an t st ate c o u rt

. ’” A ccor di ngl y , b o th the t er m s of t he habe as s t atut e and c o m m o n se n se d icta te th a t B ro n sh tein c a n n o t o b tain r e lie f o n h is B at s on cl ai m unl es s appl i cat i on of a c or r ecti nt erpr etati on of t hat deci s i on l eads t o t he conc l us i on t hathi s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed. A p p ly ing p lena ryrev iew , w e ag ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt th a t B ro n sh tein f

a iled to m a k e o u t a p rim a f a c ie c a se . F irst, itis

10 r el evantt hatB r ons ht ei n’ s cl ai m i s bas ed on a s i ngl e s t r i ke. W e do nothol d t hata pr i m a fa ci e ca s e al w ay s req u i r es m or e than one cont es t ed s t r i ke, butt he abs ence of a pa t t ern of s t r i kes i s a fa ct or t o be cons i der ed. I n t hi s connec t i on, i ti s r el evant( t hough not , as t he s t at e s upr eme cour thel d, di s pos i t i ve) t hatt he r ecor d does not r evea l w hethert he pr os ecut orpas s ed up the oppor tun it y to s t r i ke o ther p rosp ec ti v e juro rs w h o w ere Jew ish o r w h o h ad an ce stors w h o o n ce l i ved i n R us s i a. See Si m m ons v. B ey er , 44 F. 3d 1160, 1167 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( pat t ern of s t r i kes and num ber of r aci al gr oup m ember s in p an el r el evant ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C l emons, 843 F. 2d 7 4 1 , 7 4 7 -48 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ) (sam e). Second, t he natur e of the cr i m e di d notpr ovi de a r eas on for hei ght ened s us pi ci on aboutt he pr os ecut i on’ s r eas on fors t r i ki ng M s . E i del s on. See Si m m ons v. B ey er , 44 F. 3d at1167 ( natur e of cr i m e and r ace of accus ed and vi ct i m r el evant ) ; C l emons, 843 F. 2d a t 7 4 8 (sa m e ). T h e re w a s n o su g g e stio n th a t re lig io n o r e th n icity p layed a n y r o le in th e m u rd e r, an d th e a c c u se d a n d th e v ictim s har ed the s ame r el i gi on and ethni c bac kgr ound.B r ons ht ei n cont ends t hatt he s tr ike of M s . E i del s on w as 11 s us pi ci ous beca us e, i m m edi at el yaft ert he tr i al judge rul ed that B at s on does notpr ohi bi tper empt or ychal l enges bas ed on r el i gi on, t he pr os ecut orexpr es s ed an i nt er es ti n as ki ng aboutt he r el i gi on of a p ro s p e c tiv e ju ro r “ w ith a J e w is h -s o u n d in g l a s t n a m e .” B r ons ht ei n’ s B r . at84- 86. T hes e ci r cumst ance s ar e r el evant , but p arti cu larl yin li g h t of

the re aso n v o lun teered b ythe p rose cu tor, i

. e . , M s . E i d e l s o n ’ s a t t e n d a n c e a tF r i e n d s Ce n t r a l Hi g h S c h o o l , we ar e notper s uaded thata pr i m a fa ci e ca s e w as es t abl i s hed. B ro n sh tein a lso c o n ten d s tha t th e f o llo w in g f

a c ts s u p p o rt a p ri m a f ac ie ca se: (1) th e C o m m o n w ea lth ex erc ised a p ere m p tory s t r i ke aga i ns ta no n -Jew is h pr os pect i ve j ur orw ho had l i ved for s om e t i m e i n a pred om i nant l yJ ew i s h nei ghbor hood and ( 2) t he C om m o n w eal t h di d nots t r i ke otherveni r eper s ons w ho s har ed s om e of M s . E i del s on’ s char act er i s t i cs , e. g. , h er m ari t al and em p loy m en t st atus , ed u ca tio n al ba ck g rou n d , an d lack o f m il it ary s er vi ce. See B r ons ht ei n’ s B r . at86- 88. T hes e fa ct or s pr ovi de s l i ghts uppor tatbes tforB r ons ht ei n’ s pos i t i on. 43 T h ird , the p ro se c u to r’s q u e stio n s a n d sta tem e n ts d u rin g v o ir di r e di d nots ugges tt hat M s . E i del s on w as per empt or i l ychal l enged beca us e of he rr el i g ion orethni ci t y . See Si m m ons v. B ey er , 44 F. 3d at1167 ( pr os ecut or ’ s ques t i ons r el evant ) ; C l emons, 843 F. 2d at 748 ( s a me )

. I twas d e f e n s e c o u n s e l who f

i r s ta s k e d a j u r or w h e th e r sh e w a s J e w ish . T h e p ro se c u to r e x p re ss e d a n in ter e st in w hether M s . E i del s on w as a Q uaker , notw hethers he w as J ew i s h, and hi s onl yques t i on t o herconcern ed herabi l i t yt o vot e fort he d ea th p en alt y . W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt that thes e f ac ts are i ns uffi ci entt o m ake out a pr i m a fac i e cas e, and w e ther efor e r ej ect B r ons ht ei n’ s B at s on cl ai m on t hi s gr ound. 11
V I. W e n o w co n side r t w o issue s relati n g to the tr ial c o u rt ’s ev iden ti ar y ru ling s. F ir st, B ron sh tei n arg u es th at t h e tri al co u rt v io late d h is f

e d e ra l co n stitu tio n a l rig h ts to a f a ir trial, to p re se n t a defe ns e, t o due p roc es s , and t o confr ont at i on byexcl udi ng pr opos ed t es t i m onybypr i vat e i nves t i gat orA l an H ar t

. Second,See A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at14- 20, 27- 29, 32- 37, 12 C om m onw eal t h v. B r ons ht ei n, 88 C api t al A ppeal D ocket , Pa. Sup. C t., E a ste rn D istric t. 44 B r ons ht ei n cont ends t hat t he t r i al cour t vi ol at ed hi s r i ght to d ue pr oces s by admi t t i ng hi s confe s s i on t o t he Sl obot ki n m ur derfort he l i m i t ed purpos e of s how i ng t he i dent i t y of t he per s on w ho s hotand k ille d G u tm a n . A. B efore reachi ng t he m eri t s of t hese cl ai m s, w e m ust cons i derw hether rev ie w i s pr ecl uded bynon- exhaus t i on or p ro c e d u ra l d e f

a u lt. W i t h o u t a n e x p re s s w a iv e r b yth e s ta te , a fe d era l cou rtis al low ed u n d er 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) t o gr ant a s t at e pr i s oner ’ s h ab ea s pet i t i on onl yi f t he pet i t i onerhas e x h a u s te d a ll a v a ila b le s ta te re m e d ie s . I n or dert o s at i s fyt he exhaus t i on r equi r ement , a fe der al habea s cl ai m m us thave be en “f airl yp rese n ted ” to the stat e c o u rt s. P icard v . C o n n o r, 40 4 U. S. 2 7 0 , 2 7 5 (1 9 7 1 ). T h is m e a n s th a t a p e tit io n e r m u st “ p r e se n t a fede r al cl ai m ’ s fa ct ual and l egal s ubs t ance t o t he s t at e court s i n a m annert hatput s t hem on not i ce thata fe der al cl ai m i s bei ng ass er t ed. ” M cC andl es s v. V aughn, 172 F. 3d 255, 261 ( 3d C ir

. 1999)

. “I t i s not enough t hat al l t he fact s nece s s ary t o s uppor tt he fede r al cl ai m w er e bef

or e the s t at e court s , ” A nd e rson v . H arl ess, 459 U

. S. 4, 6 ( 1982) , and “mer e s i m i l ar i t yof cl ai m s i s i ns uffi ci ent t o exhaus t

. ” D u n ca n v . H en ry , 5 1 3 U

. S

. 3 6 4 , 3 6 6 (19 9 5 ). I n t hi s cas e, ourr evi ew of t he st at e cour t r ecor d r evea l s t hat t he argum ent s t hatB r ons ht ei n m ade w i t h r es pectt o t hes e i s s ues w e re b a se d e n tirely o n sta te, rath e r th a n f e d e ra l, law

. A s a re su lt,

12 t hese cl ai m s w ere not properl yexh au sted

. S ee K el l er v. L arki ns, 2 5 1 F

. 3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 3 -15 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). B ron sh tei n co n tend s, h o w ev er, th at t h ese claim s “w ere aut o ma t i c a l l ye x h a u s t e d o n d i r e c ta p p e a l b yv i r tu e o f t he P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u r t’ s m a n d a to rya p p e llate re v iew in capi t al cas es . ” R epl yA nd M em . O f L aw I n Suppor tO f Pet

. For W ri t O f H a b e a s C o rp u s a t 1 1 . U n d e r 4 2 P a . C o n s . S ta t. §45 9711( h) ( 3) ( i ) , t he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C ou rti s r equi r ed to r evi ew t he r ecor d i n capi t al cas es t o det er m i ne w hethe r “t he s ent ence of dea t h w as t he pr oductof pas s i on, pr ej udice o r any othera rb itr aryfact or[. ]” Such revi ew , B ronsht ei n asser t s, “s at i s fi es t he exhaus t i on r equi r ement foral l r ecor d- bas ed cl ai m s of c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r.” R e p lyA n d M e m . O f L a w In S u p p o rt O f P e t. For W r i tO f H abea s C orpus at15. T he D i s t r i ctC our tagr eed, s t at i ng t hat“[e ] ven w hen a pe t i ti onerfai l s t o r ai s e a pa r t i cul ar cons t i tuti onal i s s ue, t he mandat or yr evi ew of ca pi t al convi ct i ons and se n ten c i ng s r equ i red i n P enn sy l van i a i s suffi ci ent t o ex hau st fund am en ta l cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s of t he ki nd r ai s ed her e by B r ons ht ei n. ” A pp. I at22 n. 19. W e mustdi s agr ee w i t h t hi s an al y s i s . Fi r s t , nei t her42 Pa. C o n s. S tat. § 9 7 1 1 (h )(3 )(i) noranyot herPenns y l v a n i a s t atut e s t at es t hatt he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our ti s expec t ed t o t r yt o i dent i fy and then as s es s every“r ecor d- bas ed” f eder al cons t i tut i o n al ar gum ent t hat m i ght pos s i bl y be m ade on beha lf a c api t al defe nd ant. Inst ead, 42 P a. C on s. S t at

. § 9 71 1(h)( 3)( i) i m po ses a m u ch m o re li m it ed , albe it im p o rt an t, o b li g ati o n , i. e., to m ak e su re t hatno death s ent ence i s “the pr oductof pas s i on, pr ej udi ce orany o th e r a rb itr a ry f

a c to r.” S e c o n d , we s e e n o e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C our tbel i eves t hati tis req u ir ed t o engage i n, ort hati ti n fac t e n g a g e s in , the so rt o f b o u n d les s inq u iry th a t B ro n sh tein th in k s is r equi r ed. See C om m onw eal t h v. Paol el l o, 665 A

. 2d 439, 454 n. 12 (P a. 1 9 9 5 ) (“ [W ]e d ec li n e co u n sel’s in v it ati o n to sc o u r t h e re co rd f o r a d d iti o n a l er ro rs c a u se d b yc o u n se l an d su a sp o n te r a ise sa id i s s ues ; t he r eques ti s i nappr o p ri at e and nons ens i cal i n t hats uch advoca cyw o u ld be bey ond t he s cope of ourappel l at e r evi ew . ”) T h e s ta te su p re m e c o u rt’s o p in io n o n d ire c t ap p e a l in th is c a se is i l l u s t r a t i v e . Th e s t a t e s u p r e me c o u r td i d n o ta d d r e s s a n yf e d e r al c o n stitu tio n a l issu e th a t B ro n sh tein d id n o t ra ise ; n o r did th e sta te s upr eme cour taddr es s t he ques t i on w hether B r ons ht ei n’ s s t at e- l aw ar g u me n t s wou l d h a v e me r i ti f r e c a s ti n f

e d e r a l c o n s t i tu t i o n al t er m s . I ts eems fa nci ful t o s ugges tt hat , i n everycapi t al appea l , t he s t at e s upr eme cour tactual l ycons i der s and r ej ect s a hos tof fe der al cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s w i t hout rec ei vi ng br i efi ng orar gum enton t h o s e c l a i ms f

r o m c o u n s e l a n d wi t h o u t e v e n me n t i o n i n g i n t he46 opi ni on of t he courtt hatt he cl ai m s w er e ent er t ai ned. T h ird , B ro n sh tein ’s a rg u m e n t is in c o n sis te n t w ith Penns y l vani a’ s s cheme of pos t
- convi ct i on r eview

. U ndert he PC R A , a pet i t i o n er m ay n otobt ai n r el i ef on a cl ai m t hatw as “pr evi ous l yl i t i gat ed, ” 42 Pa. C ons . St at

. A nn. § 9543( a) ( 3) , and a cl ai m i s vi ew ed as havi ng been “ pr evi ous l yl i t i gat ed” i f “the hi ghes tappe ll ate c our ti n w hi ch the pet i t i onercoul d have ha d r evi ew as a m at t er of r i ght has rul ed on t he m er i t s of t he i s s ue. ” 42 P a . Con s . St a t

. An n . § 9 5 4 4

. Th u s , i f a P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C our tdeci s ion a ffi r m i ng a ca pi t al convi ct i on and s ent ence on di r ectr evi ew i s deemed t o s i gni fyt hatt he C our tco n side r ed and re jec ted e v e ryp o ss ib le f

e d e ra l co n stitu tio n a l ar g u m e n t th a t co u ld b e ma d e b a s e d o n t h e r e c o r d , i two u l d f o l l o w t h a tn o s u c h c l a i ms coul d ever be ass er t ed under t he P C R A

. See H ol l and v. H or n, 150 F. Sup p. 2d 70 6, 72 0- 21 ( E. D

. Pa

. 20 01 ) ; B anks v. H orn, 49 F. Supp. 2d 400, 406- 07 ( M

. D

. Pa. 1999)

. W e ar e convi nced thatt he P e n n sy lv a n ia L e g isla tu re d id n o t in ten d su c h a re su lt. Four t h, B r ons ht ei n’ s ar gum entw oul d frust r at e i m por t ant as pect s of t he fede r al habea s s cheme. U nder t he fede r al h abea s sta tu te, a n a p p lica n t f

o r f e d e ra l h a b e a s r e lie f

m u st s h o w th a t “ the a p p lica n t has exhaus t ed” a ll a v a ila b le s ta te re m e d ie s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( emphasi s added)

. I n addi t i on, a sta t e i s not

“ d e e m e d to h a v e w a iv e d th e e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t” u n le s s it “expr es s l y ” does s o, 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254( b) ( 3) , and a f eder al habea s co u rt ’s sco p e o f re v iew v aries g rea tl yd ep en d in g o n w h ethe r a par t i cul arcl ai m w as orw as not“adj udi cat ed on t he m er i t s ” i n t he s t at e court s . See 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254( d)

. U nderB r ons ht ei n’s ar gum ent , how ever , t he fi ct i on t hatthe stat e s upr eme cour ton di r ectr evi ew aut om at i cal l y co n s i der s al l pos s i bl e “r ecor d- bas ed” a rg u m e n ts (a n d tac itl yre jec ts a ll th o se th a t it d o e s n o t ex p re ss ly endor s e) es s ent i al l y does aw ay w i t h t hes e as pect s o f th e feder al habea s s cheme. T he exhaus t i on r equi r ement i s r ender ed m eani ngl es s s i nce a l l pos s i bl e cl ai m s ar e deemed t o be exha us t ed on di r ectr evi ew . M or eo ver , beca us e an a ffi r m ance on di r ect re v iew is d e e m e d to c o n stitu te a n a d ju d ica tio n o n th e m e rits o f a ll pos s i bl e r ecor d- bas ed cl ai m s , i tw oul d s eem t o fol l ow t hatal l s uch cl ai m s ar e s ubj ectt o t he narr ow s cope of fede r al habea s r evi ew s et o u ti n 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) r e g a r d l e s s o f wh e t h e rt h e s t a t e s u p r e me47 cou rti n fac tever con si dered t ho se cl ai m s. For t hes e r eas ons , w e agr ee w i t h t he cour t s of appe al s t hat h a v e re jec ted a rg u m e n ts s im ilar to B ro n sh tein ’s. S e e , e .g ., B e a ty v. St ew ar t , 303 F. 3d 975, 987 ( 9 C i r . 2002) ; Sm i t h v. M oor e, 137 th F. 3d 808, 821 ( 4 C i r . 19 9 8 ); N ave v. D el o, 62 F. 3d 1024, 1039 th (8 C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ); Ju li u s v . Jo h n so n , 8 4 0 F

. 2 d 1 5 3 3 , 1 5 4 6 (11 C ir

. th th 1 9 8 8 ). W e have cons i der ed the N i nt h C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n B eam v. Pas ket t , 3 F. 3d 1301, 1305- 07 ( 9 C i r . 1993) , butt hatdeci s i on th does notper s uade us t o acc eptB r ons ht ei n’ s ar gum enther e. In B e a m , the c laim a t iss u e c o n c e rn e d th e c o n stitu tio n a lity of an aggr avat i ng fac t or s et out i n t he I daho capi tal s ent enci ng sta tu te. A f

ter f irst c o n c lu d in g th a t th e h a b e a s p e tit io n e r ha d f a irly pr es ent ed hi s fede r al cl ai m t o t he I daho Supr eme C our t , t he B eam panel s t at ed thatt he cl ai m w oul d notbe pr oced u r al l ydefa ul t ed e v e n if th e p e ti tio n e r h a d n o t ra ise d it i n th e sta te s u p re m e c o u rt. T he B eam panel not ed thatt he I daho Supr eme C our tw as r equi r ed b y statu te to rev iew the en ti re rec o rd in a ca p it al c ase to m ak e su re th a t th e d e a th s e n te n c e w a s n o t th e re s u lt o f a n “ a rb itr a ry f

a c to r.” Id. at 13 0 6

. T h e p an el th en p red ict ed that the Ida h o S u p rem e C o u rt w ou l d i n t e rp r e t t h e s t a t e s t a tu t e t o me a n t h a t “ a f f i r ma n c e of a c a p ital se n ten c e c o n stitu tes a n im p lici t re jec tio n o f

a ll sp e c if

ic c laim s f a lli n g w ith in th e su b

jec t o f its m a n d a to ryre v iew a u th o rity a n d th a t anycl ai m cov ered byt he m and at oryrevi ew st atute m ust be d eem ed resol ved againstt he defe nd ant ev en if he did not r ai se th a t cla im b e f

o re th e c o u rt a n d e v e n if th e c o u rt f a iled to a d d re ss it i n i t s opi ni on. ” I d. at1306

. R eas oni ng t hatr el i ance on t he s ent enci ng fac t orati s s ue “w oul d cl ear l y cons t i tut e re l i ance on an a rb itrar yf

a c to r,” th e B e a m p a n e l co n c lu d e d th a t th is c laim f e ll w ith in the sp ec ifi c term s o f t h e Ida h o S u p rem e C o u rt ’s m an d atory revi ew authori t yand t hat therefore t he st at e supre m e c o u rtm ust have c ons i der ed and r ej ect ed the cl ai m . I d. at1307. B eam i s di s t i ngui s habl e fr om t he pre s entcas e on s ever al g ro u n d s. F irst, as n o ted , the p e tit io n e r th e re w a s h e ld to h a v e f a irly pr es ent ed hi s cl ai m t o t he s t at e s upr eme cour t

. Second, t he r el evant di s cus s i on i n B eam w as bas ed on a pr edi ct i on abouthow t he I daho Supr eme C our tw oul d i nt erpr et i t s m andat or y r evi ew author i t y , and w e d o n o t p re d ict th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u r t w o u ld48 i nt erpr eti t s m andat or y r evi ew author i t yi n a s i m i l arfas hi on. T hi r d, the relev an t discu ssion in B ea m w as a lso p red icated o n the C o u rt ’s vi ew t hatt he part i cul ar c l ai m ati s s ue, t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof a capi t al s ent enci ng fa ctor, fe l l w i t hi n t he l i s tof s peci fi c ques t i ons t hatt he I daho Supr eme Courtw as obl i gat ed t o cons i deron di r ect r e v i e w. T h e p e r t i n e n tc l a i ms h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n t , a n d e v e n i f

we w er e bound byB eam – and of course w e ar e not– i tw oul d not fol l ow t hatt he part i cul arcl ai m s in q u est i on her e fa l l w i t hi n t he sco p e o f th e P en n sy lvan ia m an d atoryrev iew p rov isi o n . H o w ev er, t o t he ext entthatB eam’ s r eas oni ng di ffe r s fr om ou r a n al y s i s of B r ons ht ei n’ s ar gum enther e, w e fi nd B eam unper s uas i ve. W e thus hol d t hat t he cl ai m s underdi s cus s i on w er e notpr oper l yexhaus t ed. A l t hough B r ons ht ei n has n everpr oper l yexhaus t ed the cl ai m s ati s s ue, he i s now “cl ear l yfor ecl os ed” fr om doi ng s o byt he P C R A t i m e l i m i t , see 42 P a. C on s. S t at

. A nn . § 9 54 5(b), and t hese cl ai ms a r e th e r efor e pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed. See W hi t ney , 280 F. 3d a t2 5 0

- 5 2

. As a r e s u l t , we ma yn o tg r a n tr e l i e f o n t ho s e c l a i ms unl es s B r ons ht ei n “makes t he st andar d s how i ng of ca us e and pr ej udi ce ores t abl i s hes a fundam ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” Id. at 25 3 (cit ati o n an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W e w o u ld p e rm it B ro n sh tein to a ttem p t o n re m a n d to e sta b lish a re a so n to e x c u se h is p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt, b u t w e f

in d it u n n e c e ss a ryto d o s o b e c a u se it i s a p p a re n t th a t th e c laim s in ques t i on l ack m er i t

. U nder28 U

. S. C

. § 2254( b) ( 2) , w e mayr ej ect cl ai m s on t he m er i t s even t hough t hey w er e notpr oper l yexhaus t ed, a n d we t a k e t h a ta p p r o a c h h e r e . We wi l l d i s c u s s i n t u r n t h e t wo evident i aryrul i ng s that B ronsht ei n co ntes t s. B. 1

. H ar t ’s t es t i m ony . I n hi s pr offe r of H ar t ’ s t es t i m onyatan i n camer a hear i ng befor e t he t r i al j udge, defe ns e couns el s t at ed that H art w o ul d t es t i fyt hathe had be en hi r ed byt he N ew J er s ey J e we l e r s ’ As s o c i a t i o n t o c o n d u c ta n i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o a “ s c a m” t hatK ar l i t s kyw as s us pect ed of carr y i ng out

. A pp. V at1376- 77. A cc o rdin g to the p rof

fe r, H art w o u ld h av e testi fied th a t jew elry t hathad bee n r epor t ed as s t ol en fr om K ar l i t s ky ’ s s t or e had “ ended up” ata dow nt ow n Phi l adel phi a s t or e ow ned byK ar l i t s ky ’ s cous i n.49 Id

. In a d d iti o n , it w a s p ro f f e re d th a t H a rt w o u ld h a v e tes tifie d th a t,

“ c o n tra ryto

. . . the C o m m o n w e a lth ’s tes tim o n y ,” th e P h ilad e lp h ia P o li ce D ep artm en t w as in v o lved in the inv esti g ati o n o f th is m att er. Id. D ef en se c o u n sel asse rt ed that H art’s t esti m o n yw o u ld su p p o rt t he theoryt hat K ar l i t s ky gave s om e of the j ew el r yfr om a s cam at th e L e o M a ll t o G u tm a n to se ll at h is s to re a n d th a t a d isp u te betw een them m ot i vat ed K ar l i t s ky t o ki l l G ut m an. See i d. at1341- 42. D efe ns e couns el ackno w ledg ed , how ever , thatK ar l i t s kyw as n ev er c h arg ed o r arrested in co n n ec ti o n w ith the L eo M all rob b ery “bec aus e theycoul dn’ tgetenough evi dence t o arr es t hi m . ” I d. at 1 3 7 7

. F u rt h erm o re, de fe n se c o u n sel co n ce d ed that m u ch o f H art’s pr offe r ed t es t i m onyw as hear s ay and t hatt he onl ypr opert es t i m ony t hatH ar tcoul d have gi ven w as t hat h e w as “w or ki ng w i t h t he Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce i n an i nves t i gat i on of K ar l i t s ky

. ” I d. at1377- 80. See al s o C om m onw eal t h v. B r ons ht ei n, 691 A

. 2d at917 n. 18. T he tr i al cour t excl uded t hi s t es t i m ony on t he ground thatevi dence aboutt he Leo M al l r obberyw as “e n t i r el ycol l at er al t o t he pr ocee di ngs , ” and the s t at e s upr eme cour thel d t hatt hi s rul i ng w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on beca us e B r ons ht ei n “fa i l ed t o offe rany evi dence thatt her e w as anyl ogi cal connec t i on betw een the S lo b o tk in a n d G u tm a n m u rd e rs a n d th is d is s im ila r c a s e .” B r ons ht ei n, 691 A

. 2d at917. “A d efendant ’ s r i ghtt o pr es entr el evantevi dence i s not unl i m i t ed, butr atheri s s ubj ectt o r eas onabl e r es t r i ct i ons . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Scheff

er , 523 U

. S. 303, 308 (1 9 9 8 ). H ere , the tri al co u rt appar ent l yappl i ed a fami l i arevi dence rul e al l ow i ng t he exc l us i on of evi dence i f i t s pr obat i ve va lue i s out w ei ghed byt he dange rof confus i on of t he i s s ues orneedl es s pr es en tat ion of cumul at i ve evi dence

. See M o rr i s o n v . Com m onw eal t h, D ept

. O f Pub. W el far e, 646 A

. 2d 565 ( Pa. 1994) ; C om m onw eal t h v. B oy l e, 447 A

. 2d 250 ( Pa. 1982) ; Pa. R ul e of Evi d. 403 ( eff ect i ve 1998)

. T he tr i al cour t ’ s rul i ng pl ai nl ydi d notr i se to the l evel of a f eder al cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. T o begi n, H ar t ’ s pr offe r ed tes t i m onyw oul d have be en l ar gel ycumul at i ve s i nce evi dence aboutt he Leo M al l r obberyhad a l r e a d yb e e n a d mi t t e d

. M o n t g o me r yCo u n t yDe t e c t i v e Do n a l d H.I tappea r s t hat H ar t ’ s t es t i m onyw oul d have s uppl ement ed 13 R ohner ’ s i n onl yone r es pect

. W hi l e R ohner t es t i fi ed thatK ar l i t s ky w as a s us pecti n t he Leo M al l r obbery , he s t at ed thathe di d not re c e iv e a n yin f

o rm a t i on that the P hil ad e lp h ia p o lice c o n sid e re d h im a s u s p e c t, a n d H a rt w o u ld h a v e tes tifie d th a t th e P h ilad e lp h ia p o li ce d id su sp ec t K arli tsky

. T h is ad d it ion al fe ature o f H art’s pr offe r ed t es t i m onyi s fart oo s l i ghtt o convi nce us t hatt he tr i al cou rt ’s rul i ng viol at ed B ronsht ei n’s federal con st i tuti on al ri gh t s. 50 R ohnerhad t es t i fi ed that , acc or di ng t o an unnamed s our ce ( w ho, unbeknow ns tt o t he j ur y , w as B r ons ht ei n hi m s el f) , K ar l i t s kyw as a s us pecti n t he al leged r obberyof hi s ow n s t or e. I ndeed, i n an i m por t antr es pect , R oh n er’s t es t i m onyw as actual l ym or e hel pful to th e d e f

e n se th a n H a rt’s w o u ld h a v e b e e n . A lth o u g h H a rt c o u ld n o t hav e g iven co m p eten t t esti m o n ysu p p o rt ing the d ef en se th eo ry th a t so m e o f

th e jew e lryf

ro m th e L e o M a ll ro b b e ry h a d f o u n d its w a yto G u tm a n ’s s to re , R o h n e r te stif ied th a t, ac c o rd in g to h is so u rce , jew el r yfr om t he Leo M al l r obberyhad “e nded up s om ew h ere else, atl eas tone orm or e otherpl ace s [. ] ” A pp. I V at 898. 13
M o re o v e r, ev e n if H a rt’s te s tim o n yh a d n o t b e e n lar g e ly c u m u lativ e , itw o u ld h a v e h a d lit tle p ro b a ti v e v a lu e . A t b e st, H ar t ’ s t es t i m onys ugges t ed thatK ar l i t s kym igh t h ave s t aged the r obberyof hi s ow n s t or e. T hi s fac tal one s heds no li ghton t he id e n tityo f

G u tm a n ’s k ill e r. E v e n if H a rt’s tes tim o n y is v iew e d in conj unct i on w i t h D et ect i ve R ohner ’ s s t at ement t hat so m e of the j ew el r yfr om t he Leo M al l s t or e “e nded up” i n ot her p lace s , t he ev iden ce d o es li tt le t o sh o w that o n e of tho se plac es w as G u tm an ’s sto re , m u c h les s th a t a d isp u te o v e r th is jew e lry led K a rlitsk yto k ill G ut m an. T hi s l i m i t ed pr obat i ve val ue m us t be w ei ghed aga i ns tt he l i kel ydangert hatt he evi dence w oul d s i d e tr a ck the pr ocee di ngs and confus e the j ur y . B yadmi t t i ng H ar t ’ s t es t i m ony , t he courtr i s ked s ubm er gi ng t he def

endant ’ s t r i al i n col lat er al l i t i gat i on overan uns ol ved and ( atm os t ) t angent i al l yr el at ed cr i m e comm i t t ed by s om eone othert han the ac cus ed. For t hes e r eason s, the t r i al j udge’ s deci s i on t o excl ude H art’s pr offe r ed t es t i m onydi d not viol at e B ronsht ei n’s federal con st i tuti on al ri gh t s.51 2

. C onf es s i on t o S lobotki n m ur der

. A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, B r ons ht ei n confe s s ed t o t he P hi l adel phi a pol i ce t hat he had ki l l ed Sl obot ki n, butw hen B r ons ht ei n w as ques t i oned byt he M ont gom eryC ount ypol i ce a bout t he G ut m an m ur der he t ol d t hem t hatSl obot ki n and G ut m an had be en k il led b yt he s ame m an, n a m e l y, “ M r . X , ” w h o m B r o n s h t e i n l a t e ri d e n t i f i e d a s K a r l i t s k y. B r ons ht ei n al s o s ai d t hathe w as afr ai d of M r . X and that he had pr evi ous l yconfe s s ed t o t he Sl obot ki n m ur deronl ybeca us e he w oul d have “ w al ked outof [the pol i ce s t at i on] a dead m an ” if he had notconfe s s ed. A pp. I V at965- 66. T h e tri al j u d g e a d m itted e v iden ce o f B ron sh tei n ’s c o n f e ss io n to th e S lo b o tk in m u rd e r b u t in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t it w a s p e rm itt e d to c o n sid e r th is e v id e n c e so lelyin re latio n to B ronsht ei n’s s t at em ent that the p ers on w ho kil l ed S lo b o tk i n als o k il led G u tm an . W h en the e v iden ce w as a d m itted , th e tr ial co u rt t o l d t h e j u r y: T hi s evi denc e [ Br o n s h t e i n ’ s confe s s i on t hathe ki l l ed Sl obot ki n] i s n o t to be cons i der ed byy ou t o t he e x ten t th a t o n e m ig h t c o n c lu d e , w e ll, if h e d id d o th is othercri m e for w hich w e’r e no tt ry i ng , t hen , h e ’s a bad per s on, and thatm eans he proba bl y di d t hi s . N o, i t can’ t be us ed for t hat purpos e. I t comes i n for a veryl i m i t ed an d sp eci fi c purpos e, w hi ch i s t o s ay th a t if y o u b e liev e th a t h e m a d e th is s tate m e n t, an d if y ou bel i eve that itw as true, and i f y ou bel i eve that he made t he o t hers t at ement t hathas been e nt er ed i nt o evi dence [t hatt h e sam e per s on w ho ki l l ed Sl obot ki n al s o ki l l ed G u tman] , and i f y ou bel i eve t hati s t rue, t hen, al l of t hatm aybe cons i der ed by y ou as evi dence as t o t he i dent i t y of t he per s on w ho di d, i n fac t , ki l l M r . G ut m an, t he dec edent w ho i s t he s ubj e c t o f t h i s c a s e . But i t i s f o r t h a t s p e c i fi c and lim ited p u rp o se o n lyth a t you a re b e in g p e rm itt e d to hear t his

. I d. at1090- 91. I n i t s fi nal char ge, t he tr i al co u rt g av e a s i m i l arT he tr i al j udge s t at ed: 14 [Y ] ou’ ve hea r d evi dence t end ing t o pr ove thatt he d e f e n d a n t w a s g u iltyo f

a n o f f e n se f o r w h ich h e is noton t r i al , and I am s peaki ng agai n of t he t es t i m ony to th e e f f e c t th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t m a d e a sta tem e n t to D et ect i ve A ugus t i ne thathe had ki l l ed a j ew el er named Sl obot ki n. T hi s evi dence , as I i ns t ruct ed y ou at t he t i m e y ou fi r s t hear d i t , w as befor e y ou for a lim ited p u rp o se , tha t is , f o r th e p u rp o se o f

ten d in g to s how t he i dent i t yo f t he ki l l eri n t hi s , t he G ut m an cas e, and t hen onl y beca us e t he C om m onw eal t h has putbefor e y ou another s t at ement al l egedl yfr om t he defe ndantt hatt he ki l l erof Sl obotkin and t he ki l l er o f G ut m an w er e one a nd t he s ame m an. I n ot her w or ds , y ou w er e al l ow ed t o hearaboutt he s t at ement al l eged l yat t ri bu ted t o the defen dan ton a case unr el at ed t o t hi s one onl y beca us e i f coupl ed w i t h t he ot hers t at ementat t r i but ed t o hi m and i f bel i eved by y ou, t hen, i tgoes t o t he ques t i on of t he i dent i t yof th e k ill e r o f

M r. G u tm a n , w h ich is th e iss u e in th is cas e. N ow , t hi s evi dence m us t notbe cons i der ed by y ou i n a nyw a yothe rt ha n f ort he pu rpo s e I j ust st at ed. Y ou m ust n o t r egard t his evidence, t hat i s, t he s t at ement aboutki l l i ng Sl obot ki n , as s how i ng t ha t t h e d e f

e n d a n t i s a p e r s o n o f b a d c h a r a c t er or cr i m i nal t endenc i es fr om w h ic h y ou m i ghtbe i ncl i ned t o i nfer hi s gui l t

. I f y ou fi nd t he def endant guil ty , itm us tbe bec aus e y ou ar e convi nced byt he evi dence t hathe comm i t t ed the cr i m e i n t hi s cas e, the o n e c h arg ed , n o t bec a u s e y o u b eli ev e h e’s wi c k e d o rh a s c o mmi t t e d o t h e ro f f e n s e s i n o t her places atothert i m es. A pp. V , Pt

. 2 at1676- 77. 52 w arni ng. 14 A dm i s s i o n o f “ o ther c ri m es” ev iden ce p rov ides a g rou n d forIn th is c o n tex t, “re le v a n t” m e a n s s u f f icie n t to su p p o rt a 15 fi ndi ng t hatt he othercr i m e orw rong occ ur r ed and thatt he de fe nd a ntw a s t he a c t or . H ud dles t on v. U ni t e d St a t e s , 48 5 U. S. 6 8 1 , 6 8 9 (19 8 8 ). 53 fede ral hab eas r el i ef on l yi f “t he e v id e n ce’s probati ve v al ue is so c o n sp icu o u slyo u tw e ig h e d b yits in f lam m a to ryc o n te n t, s o a s to vi ol at e a de fenda nt ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o a fai r t r i al

. ” Lesko v. O w ens, 88 1 F. 2d 44 , 52 (3d C i r. 19 89 ). T hat i s plai nly no tt he case her e. O th e r c rim e s e v id e n c e is ro u tin e lya d m itt e d w h e n it i s r el evant t o s how “i dent i t y . ” See, e. g. , Fed. R

. E vi d. 404( b) ; Pa.

15 R

. E vi d. 404( b) ( 2 ). H er e, B r ons ht ei n’ s confe s s i on t o t he Phi l ad elph i a pol i ce thathe ki l l ed Sl obot ki n w as r el evantt o s how t he i dent i t yof G ut m an’ s ki l l er beca us e B r ons ht ei n l at eri nfor m ed t h e M on t go m eryC ou ntypo l i ce t hat Sl ob otki n’s ki l l er al so m u rd e re d G u tm a n . B ro n sh tein ’s c o n f e ss io n to th e S lo b o tk in m u rde r w as no t r en d ere d irrelev an t byh is sub seq u en t con tr ad ict o ry s t at ement t o t he M ont gom eryC ount ypol i ce th at K ar l i t s kyki l l ed S l o b o t k i n , a s we l l a s Gu t ma n . Re l e v a n t e v i d e n c e d o e s n o tb e c o me i r r el evantj us tbeca us e cont r adi ct or y evi dence exi s t s . C onfl i ct i ng evi dence pr es ent s a quest i on of cr edi bi l i t yfort he tr i erof fa ct , not a q u e stio n o f

re lev a n c e f

o r th e c o u rt, an d o f

c o u rse a trier o f

f a c t is underno obl i gat i on t o acc ept or r ej ecta part y ’ s admi s s i ons i n t ot o. O n the c o n tr ary , a tri er o f f ac t m ayb eli ev e so m e o f th e p arty ’s admi s s i ons and di s bel i eve other s . H er e, B r ons ht ei n’ s s t at em ent that h e k il led S lob o tkin a n d h is st atem e n t to the M o n tgo m ery C o u n typ o lice th a t K a rlitsk yw a s th e k ill e r w e r e b o th re lev a n t to s how t he i dent i t y of G ut m an’ s m ur der er , and i t w as pr operfort he t ri al j ud ge to adm i tbo t h st at em ents

. V II. B r ons ht ei n’ s fi nal ar gum entconce r ns comm ent s m ade by t he pr os ecut ori n h is g u il tphas e s um m at i on. I n s hor t , t he pr os ecut orar gued that , al t hough B r ons ht ei n’ s att or neyhad s ugges t ed thatK arl i t s kyw as a maj oror gani zed c r i m e fi gur e and t hatK ar l i t s kyhad ki l l ed G ut m an, t he def ens e had notoffe r ed anyT he pr os ecut ors t at ed: 16
A n d I su g g e st to y o u th e yw o u ld se a rc h h ig h a n d lo w , h e a v e n a n d h e ll, to trya n d g e t so m e b o d yin th is cour t r oom , expertor o the r w i s e, that c a n p u t K a rlitsk yso m e h o w re late d to s om e s cam –

. . . . T h e yw o u ld b e m o r e th a n h a p p yto f in d so m e b o d yth a t w o u ld c o m e in h e r e a n d l i n k [ Ka r l i t s k y ] t o s o me s cam, l i nk hi m t o s om e i nvol vem ent of t he mob. As k t h e i r o wn s o - c a l l e d e x p e r t , t he m an they ’re put t i ng for t h as t he expert , “H ave y o u everhear d of Kar l i t s k y ?”

. . . . D i d y ou hear t hat ques t i on even pos ed to th eir ex p ert? D id y o u h ea r he h ea rd hi m [K ar l i t s kl y ] i nvol ved i n anyt hi ng? W hati s t hi s , w hathe has l abel ed, N ick yS c a rf

o -lik e h e a d ? W h a t’s h is cri m i nal ba ckg round ? N o robb eri es, l i ke he s ai d. N o m ur der s , l i ke he s ai d. B i g N i cky S car fo, D addyW arbucks Scar fo, heade d t hi s R us s i an M afi a, R ussi an M ob , has a shop l i ft i ng arr est f ro m 1 9 9 0

. T h a t’s w h e re th e yg o t h is f in g e rp rin ts fro m , a sh o p liftin g a rre st. No o t h e rc r i mi n a l h i s t o r y , n o t h i ng w ith r o b b e r ie s , n o th in g w ith m ur der s [. ]

. . . T hat ’ s a sm oke s cr een,

54 s i gni fi cantevi dence t o s uppor tt hi s t heory . A ccor di ng t o t he pr os ecut or , even the Leo M al l evi dence w as w eak. 16l adi es a nd gent l emen, y ou can co n clud e b ase d o n the e v iden ce that’s been pr es ent ed t o y ou. T hat ’ s s om ethi ng w her e t hey ’ r e tr y i ng t o t ake y o u r foc us off the bal l , t r y i ng t o g e t y o u r a t t e n t i o n d e f l e c t e d off of w haty ou can c oncl u d e base d on t he law a n d th e e v id e n c e is th e re a l tru th i n t hi s cas e. T h e y w a n tyo u t o b e l i e v e a K a r l i t s k y. T heyhave t o have y ou bel i eve a K a rlitsk yif

th e ir d e f

e n se is g o in g to a p p ly, if th e ir d e f

e n se is g o in g to w or k. Bu tn o b o d yh a s h e a r d o f h i m. Or g a n i z e d c r i me h a s n ’ t h e a r d o f h i m. H e’ s notl i n ked t o anys cams, not l i nked t o anyor gani zed c r i m e –

. . . . N ot hi ng. N o li nks w hat s oevert hat hav e been broug ht for w ard i n this case n o m a tter h o w m a n y tim e s h e w a n ts to ob j e c t , bu t t ha t ’ s s t i l l t he w a yi t i s. A nd t hat ’ s s t i l l t he fa ct s i n t hi s cas e. T he onl ythi ng t heyeven a l l uded t o – and I s ugges tt o y ou, t heydi dn’ teven gi ve y ou t he w hol e pi ctur e – w as t hey al l uded t o s om e L eo M al l s t or e he ha d as a j ew el er . H e star t s t al ki ng about t hi s cons i gnm ents tuff. Y ou haven’ t hear d one w or d aboutany cons i gnm entfr om L eo M all

. Y ou h a v e n ’t h e a rd w o rd o n e a b o u t h is

55i nvol vement i n anys cam fr om Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce i nvol ved i n t he L eo M al l , not one i ot a aboutt hat ; but th e y b rin g it fo rth a n d th e ya rg u e it t o y o u w h e n th e yc o m e h e re in c lo sin g to t r yand s ay , “W el l , w e’ l l i nfer he w as i nvol ved i n a s cam her e; s o w e’ l l t ake t hatand i nfert hr oug h o u rexpertt hat Ru s s i a n J e ws a r e i n v o l v e d i n s c a ms and a l otof or gani zed c r i m e. Fr om t hat , t heydo s cams, and so w e’ l l l i nk hi m fr om m aybe bei ng i n a s cam, fr om bei ng a R us s i an Jew t o m aybe w o rking i n s cams theydo. W ah- l a. H e ’s o rg a n iz e d c ri m e .” T hi nk of t he s t ep thatt akes

. T hi nk of t he l eaps t heyt ake w h en t heyt r yand take that to y o u an d w h ethe r i t’ s founded i n anyof t he evi dence that has been pr es ent ed t o y ou. T hi nk of t hat , beca us e t hat ’ s t he l i nchpi n of th e ir d e f e n se ; b e c a u se if

th is f e a r is di s pel l ed, i f t hi s K ar l i t s kydoes not e x ist in ter m s o f

d o in g a n y th in g in th is c a s e , t h e n , t h e i rd e f

e n s e g o e s d o wn t he tubes. A pp. V , Pt

. 2 at1585- 88. 56 B r ons ht ei n cl ai m s t hat t he pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement s vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i g h ts. H e cont ends t hatt he comm ent s on t he defe nse’s fai l ure t o p re se n tevidence in supp ortof the defe nse t heoryw er e i m pr operbeca us e the pros ecut or knew t hat , butfort he t r i al cour t ’ s pr ecl us i on of H ar t ’ s t es t i m ony , t he def ens e w oul d have pr es en t ed “e vi dence t hatK ar l i t s kyhad pr evi ous l ycomm i t t ed j ew el r yr ob ber i es and s cams i n s uppor tof t he def ens e theoryt hat K ar l i t s ky

. . . hel d the i nt ent , m ot i ve and means forcomm i t t i ng t he i ns t antoffe ns es . ” B r ons ht ei n’ s B r . at104.57 I m pr operr emar ks by a pros ecut or m ay “s o i nfec t [] t he tr i al w i t h unfai r nes s as t o m ake the r es ul t i ng convi ct i on a deni al of due p roc ess.” D o n n ell y v . D e C h ri stof o ro, 41 6 U

. S

. 6 3 7 , 6 4 3 (19 7 4 ). D ue p rocess i s vi olat ed w here t he m i scond uct “ c o nst i tutes a ‘fa il u re to o b serv e tha t fu n d am en tal fa irn ess e ssen ti al t o the v ery conce ptof j us t i ce. ’ ” I d. at642. N o s uch vi ol at i on occurr ed her e. In d isc u ss in g th e p ro se c u to r’s c o m m e n ts, th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our tacc ur at el ynot ed that t he defe ns e had notpr offe r ed a n ye v i d e n c e t h a tKa r l i t s k yh a d s t a g e d t h e r o b b e r yo f h i s o wn sto re , o n lye v id e n c e th a t th e p o lice su sp e c ted h im o f in v o lv e m e n t. See B r ons ht ei n, 691 A

. 2d at 920. M or eover , t her e w as no evi dence lin k in g K a rlitsk y to “ th e R u ss ian ‘m a f ia.’” Id . T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our tobs er ved: [A ] r evi ew of t he tr anscript of an i n ca m era d iscu ssion rev ea ls th at, alt h o u g h ap p ell an t’ s ex p ert had per s onal l yi nves t i gat ed the pos s i bi l i t yof K ar l i t s ky ’ s i nvol vement i n an al l eged s cam att he L eo M al l j ew el r ys t or e, t her e had been no e vi dence t o l i nk Kar l i t s k yt o a n ys u c h s c a m ort o l i n k a ny je w e lr ys c a m to th e G u tm a n m u rd e r . . . . T ria l co u n se l d e d ica ted m o re th a n h a lf o f h is s i xt ypage c l os i ng ar gum entt o t h e theor yt hat K arli ts kyhad comm i t t ed the murde ras par tof a je w e lr ys to re s c a m in v o lv in g th e R u s s ia n “ m a f ia ,” a n d th a t ap p e llan t h a d c o n f e ss e d to th e S lo b o tk in m ur deroutof fear of K ar l i t s ky

. G i ven thatt her e w as no evi dence , ei t her at t r i al or i n t he defe ns e proffer on t he s ubs t ance of t he exc l uded t es t i m ony , of K ar l it s ky ’ s i nvol vement i n an al l eged s cam att he s t or e orhi s connec t i on t o t he R us s i an “m afi a, ” i tw as n o t im p ro p e r f

o r th e p ro se c u tio n to a sk th e ju ryto dr aw an i nfer ence t hatno s uch evi dence exi s t ed. I d. W e a g re e w ith th e s tate su p re m e c o u rt’s a n a ly sis o f th is issue an d h o ld tha t th e su m m ati o n d id n o t viola te B ron sh tei n ’s58 fede ral con st i tuti on al ri gh t s. V III

. For t he r eas ons s etoutabove, w e rev erse the or derof t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n par tand af fi r m i n par t , and w e re m and forfur t her pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.