2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-14-2005

Bronshtein v. Horn

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 01-9004

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Bronshtein v. Horn" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1280.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1280
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

Nos. 01-9004 & 01-9005

____________

ANTUAN BRONSHTEIN

 v.

MARTIN L. HORN, Commissioner, Pennsylvania

Department of Corrections

 MARTIN HORN, COMMISSIONER,

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF

 CORRECTIONS; *JAMES PRICE,

SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE

 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GREENE;

JOSEPH P.

 MAZURKIEWICZ, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE

STATE CORRECTIONAL

 INSTITUTION AT ROCKVIEW; **GERALD J.

PAPPERT, ATTORNEY

 GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellants, No. 01-9004

 *(Pursuant to Rule 12(a), F.R.A.P.)

 **(Amended in accordance with Clerk’s Order dated 6/23/04)

___________________

ANTUAN BRONSHTEIN,

 Appellant, No. 01-9005

 v.
2

MARTIN HORN, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department

of Corrections; *JAMES PRICE, SUPERINTENDENT OF

THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT

GREENE; JOSEPH P. MAZURKIEWICZ,

SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION AT ROCKVIEW; **GERALD J. PAPPERT,

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA

 *(Amended in accordance with Clerk's Order dated

8/29/01.)

 **(Amended in accordance with Clerk's Order dated

6/23/04.)

____________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN

DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. No. 99-cv-02186)

District Judge: The Honorable Lowell A. Reed, Jr.

___________________

Argued: April 22, 2003

Before: ALITO, BARRY, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: April 14, 2005)

Patrick J. O’Connor, Esq.

Peter G. Rossi, Esq.

Cozen O’Connor

1900 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Louis M. Natali, Jr. Esq. (Argued)

Turner & McDonald, P.C.

1725 Spruce Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Appellee/Cross-Appellant
3

Patricia E. Coonahan (Argued)

Assistant District Attorney Captain,

 Appellate Division

Mary MacNeil Killinger

Deputy District Attorney

Chief, Appellate Division

Office of District Attorney

P.O. Box 311

Norristown, PA 19104

Counsel for Appellants/Cross-Appellees

_________________

OPINION OF THE COURT

____________________

ALITO, Circuit Judge:

Antuan Bronshtein was convicted in a Pennsylvania court

for first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After unsuccessful

post-trial litigation in the state courts, he filed the habeas petition

now at issue. The District Court found merit in some but not all of

Bronshtein’s claims and ordered that a writ of habeas corpus be

granted unless Bronshtein was retried within a specified time. The

habeas respondent (hereinafter “the Commonwealth”) appealed,

and Bronshtein cross-appealed. We reverse the order of the

District Court insofar as it required a new guilt-phase trial, but we

affirm insofar as it required resentencing. 

I.

In April 1994, Antuan Bronshtein was tried in the Court of

Common Pleas of Montgomery County on charges stemming from

the robbery and shooting death of Alexander Gutman. The

evidence at trial may be summarized follows. At about 5 p.m. on

January 11, 1991, Montgomery County police investigated a

robbery at a store called Jewelry by Alex in the Valley Forge

Shopping Center. See Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 691 A.2d

907, 911 (Pa. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 936 (1997). The police
4

discovered that the proprietor, Alexander Gutman, had been killed

by two gunshot wounds to the face. Id. Investigators found three

fingerprints and a palmprint on one of the intact display cases in

the store, and these prints were later identified as Bronshtein’s. Id.

On February 27, 1991, Bronshtein contacted Philadelphia

police investigators and said that he wanted to discuss the murder

of another jeweler, Jerome Slobotkin, who had been killed in

Philadelphia on February 19, 1991. Bronshtein, 691 A.2d at 912.

After waiving his Miranda rights, Bronshtein signed a detailed

written confession admitting to the Slobotkin murder, and in

February 1992, he was convicted for that offense. Id.

About a month after Bronshtein confessed to the Slobotkin

murder, Montgomery County police met with Bronshtein, at his

request, to discuss the Gutman murder. During this interview,

Bronshtein denied killing Slobotkin and said that both Slobotkin

and Gutman had been killed by a “Mr. X,” whom Bronshtein

described as a high-level member of the “Russian mafia.” Id.

During this interview, Bronshtein did not disclose Mr. X’s name,

but he later identified him as Adik Karlitsky, another jeweler. Id.

Although Bronshtein told the Montgomery County police

that he had not killed Gutman, Bronshtein admitted that he was

acquainted with him and that he knew that he owned a jewelry

store. Bronshtein, 691 A.2d at 912. However, Bronshtein denied

knowing the location of the store or even that of the Valley Forge

Shopping Center, and he claimed that he had not seen Gutman in

more than two years. Id.

At trial, however, three witnesses identified Bronshtein as

a man whom they had seen in or near Gutman’s store on the day of

his murder. Laura Sechrist stated that she had passed the store at

approximately noon and had seen Bronshtein and another man

talking to Gutman. Bronshtein, 691 A.2d at 912. Larry

Bainbridge, a postal carrier, testified that he had walked by the

store at 12:45 p.m. and had seen Bronshtein behind the counter. Id.

Alexander Daniels testified that he had passed the store at about

3:15 p.m. and had seen Bronshtein standing outside the store. Id.
5

Finally, a man named Wilson Perez testified about an

admission made by Bronshtein during January 1991. According

to Perez, he and Bronshtein were riding in Bronshtein’s car on

Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia when Bronshtein said that he

had killed a man in a jewelry store “out past the boulevard” and

had taken his jewelry. Bronshtein, 691 A.2d at 912. As the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted, Roosevelt Boulevard “runs in

a northerly and southerly direction through Northeast

Philadelphia,” and “[i]n order to travel to Montgomery County

from a large section of Northeast Philadelphia, it is necessary to

cross . . . Roosevelt Boulevard.” Id. at 912 n.12. Perez further

testified that Bronshtein had given unset gemstones to Perez’s

brother. Id. at 912.

The Commonwealth proceeded on the theory that, although

a second person had probably been involved in the robbery of

Gutman’s store, it was Bronshtein who intentionally shot and killed

Gutman. Bronshtein, on the other hand, contended that Adik

Karlitsky shot and killed Gutman. According to Bronshtein,

Karlitsky was a high-level member of a Russian organized crime

group. Bronshtein said that he worked for Karlitsky as a jewelry

“fence” and had merely accompanied Karlitsky to Gutman’s store

without knowing that Karlitsky was going to kill him.

The jury convicted Bronshtein of first-degree murder,

robbery, theft of movable property, and possession of an instrument

of crime, as well as conspiracy to commit murder, robbery, and

theft. At the penalty phase, the jury found two aggravating

circumstances: that Bronshtein had “committed [the] killing while

in the perpetration of a felony,” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9711(d)(6),

and that he had “a significant history of felony convictions

involving the use or threat of violence to the person.” 42 Pa. Cons.

Stat. § 9711(d)(9). The jury found three mitigating circumstances:

extreme mental or emotional disturbance, poor childhood

upbringing, and “a possibility that the defendant did not pull the

trigger.” App. VI at 1969; see 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9711(e)(2), (8).

However, the jury found that the aggravating circumstances

outweighed the mitigating circumstances and accordingly returned

a sentence of death for the first-degree murder conviction. The

trial court subsequently imposed the death sentence along with
6

consecutive terms of imprisonment for the other convictions. The

Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed, Commonwealth v.

Bronshtein, 691 A.2d 907 (Pa. 1997), and the United States

Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 20, 1997. 522 U.S.

936 (1997).

On December 3, 1997, the Center for Legal Education,

Advocacy and Defense Assistance (“CLEADA”) filed a “pro se”

Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) petition on Bronshtein’s

behalf (“pro se PCRA petition”). The petition did not state any

claim for relief; it merely stated: “This is not a counseled PCRA

petition, but a request to initiate review, filed pro se. A counseled

petition shall be filed later pursuant to the court’s order.” App. VII

at 2126. The petition was signed by a CLEADA attorney,

purportedly with Bronshtein’s authorization.

Shortly after the “pro se” PCRA petition was filed,

Bronshtein personally informed the trial court “that he wished to

waive his right to appeal and to terminate the PCRA proceedings

so that the sentence of death could be carried out immediately.” Id.

at 2121. He later told the court that the CLEADA attorneys “had

been misleading him and acting contrary to his instructions[.]” Id.

at 2121 n.2. On January 26, 1999, after extensive litigation over

Bronshtein’s competency to waive his rights under the PCRA, the

trial court issued an order dismissing the “pro se” PCRA petition

with prejudice. The court found that Bronshtein had “knowingly,

intelligently and voluntarily” sought to withdraw the petition. Id.

at 2125.

Bronshtein’s mother and sister filed a next friend appeal

from the trial court’s order. On April 16, 1999, the appeal was

denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which held that the

appellants had failed to show that Bronshtein was incompetent.

Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 729 A.2d 1102 (Pa. 1999). On

April 23, 1999, Bronshtein’s mother and sister filed a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court and asked the Court to

issue a stay of execution. On April 29, 1999, during a hearing on

the petition, Bronshtein informed the District Court that he had

changed his mind and wished to pursue post-conviction relief. The

District Court stayed Bronshtein’s execution, appointed counsel for
7

him, and gave him 120 days to prepare and file his own federal

habeas petition.

On June 9, 1999, Bronshtein filed with the state trial court

a petition styled as an “Amended Petition For Habeas Corpus

Relief Under Article I, Section 14 Of The Pennsylvania

Constitution And For Statutory Post Conviction Relief Under The

Post Conviction Relief Act.” The trial court treated the petition as

a second PCRA petition and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction,

holding both that Bronshtein had “irrevocably waived” his right to

seek post-conviction relief and that the petition was untimely.

App. VII at 2111-13. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed,

stating that it “agree[d] with the PCRA court that [Bronshtein’s]

petition [was] untimely, leaving [it] without jurisdiction to reach

[Bronshtein’s] issues.” Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 752 A.2d

868, 871 (Pa. 2000). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that

Bronshtein’s “judgment became final on October 20, 1997, the date

that the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.” Id. at 870.

The state supreme court therefore reasoned that Bronshtein “was

required to file his petition for post-conviction relief within one

year of October 20, 1997, that is by October 20, 1998, in order for

his PCRA petition to be timely filed.” Id. The Pennsylvania

Supreme Court did not address the question whether Bronshtein

had “irrevocably waived” his right to seek post-conviction relief,

as the trial court had held.

Bronshtein filed the present petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on October 27, 1999. The

petition asserted 15 claims, but only seven are at issue in this

appeal. The following claims (numbered as they were in the

petition) are before us:

I. The trial court violated due process by

erroneously instructing the jury that

Bronshtein’s specific intent could be inferred

from the actions of his co-conspirator.

III. Bronshtein’s death sentence violates the

Eighth Amendment because it was based in

part on an aggravating circumstance (42 Pa.
8

Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9711(d)(6)) that the jury

did not find beyond a reasonable doubt.

IV. The trial court violated Bronshtein’s federal

constitutional rights by excluding material

and relevant defense evidence.

V. The trial court’s admission of “other crimes”

evidence violated Bronshtein’s federal

constitutional rights.

VI. Bronshtein’s due process rights were violated

by repeated acts of prosecutorial misconduct.

VII. The prosecution violated Batson v. Kentucky,

476 U.S. 79 (1986), by exercising a

peremptory strike against a potential juror of

Russian-Jewish heritage.

IX. The trial court violated the Eighth

Amendment by failing to inform the jury that

a life sentence in Pennsylvania means life

without the possibility of parole.

The District Court handed down a decision without holding

an evidentiary hearing. See Bronshtein v. Horn, 2001 WL 767593,

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9310 (E.D. Pa. July 5, 2001). Before

reaching the merits of Bronshtein’s claims, the District Court first

addressed the issue of procedural default. Although some of

Bronshtein’s claims had been raised in the state courts for the first

time in the second PCRA petition, which the state supreme court

had found to be untimely, the District Court held that these claims

were not procedurally defaulted, “because the procedural rule that

the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania relied upon in rejecting his

claims was not clearly established or regularly followed at the time

of his alleged default, [and] therefore was not sufficiently

‘adequate’ to bar federal habeas review.” App. I at 3, 7-21.

Turning to the merits, the District Court concluded that the trial

court’s instructions on co-conspirator liability had violated

Bronshtein’s due process rights by permitting the jury to convict
9

Bronshtein of first-degree murder without finding that he had the

specific intent to kill, and the District Court found that this error

was not harmless. See id. at 25-34. The District Court next

concluded that the trial court had violated Simmons v. South

Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), by failing to inform the jury that a

Pennsylvania prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment may not be

paroled. See id. at 35-41. Finally, the Court concluded that

Bronshtein’s death sentence violated the Eighth Amendment

because it was based in part on an invalid aggravating circumstance

(42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9711(d)(6) (commission of the killing while

in the perpetration of a felony)).

The Court ordered that a writ of habeas corpus be issued if

the Commonwealth did not retry Bronshtein within 180 days, and

in light of this relief, the Court found it unnecessary to address the

other claims raised in the petition. See App. I at 46 n.33. The

Court stated that Bronshtein had not argued “that his convictions

for robbery, theft, and conspiracy were constitutionally flawed,”

and the Court therefore did “not consider those convictions[.]” Id.

at 47 n.35.

Bronshtein filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). He argued that his § 2254

petition did in fact raise claims – specifically, Claims IV, V, VI and

VII – challenging his robbery, theft, and conspiracy convictions.

The District Court denied the motion and held that the “voluminous

and carefully crafted submissions on [Claims IV, V and VI] can

only be read to challenge the murder conviction.” Bronshtein v.

Horn, 2001 WL 936702 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2001). However, the

Court agreed with Bronshtein that Claim VII addressed the other

convictions, but the Court rejected that claim on the merits. Id.

The Commonwealth has appealed the District Court’s order

granting relief on Claims I, III, and IX. Bronshtein has filed a

cross-appeal, and he requests a certificate of appealability on

Claims IV, V, VI and VII. His request was referred to this panel

and is now before us along with the Commonwealth’s appeal.
10

II.

We first consider the claims (i.e., Claims I, III, and IX) on

which the District Court granted relief. All of these claims were

raised for the first time in the state courts in the second PCRA

petition and, as noted, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed

the dismissal of that petition on the ground that it was untimely.

The Commonwealth therefore contends that federal habeas review

of the merits of these claims is blocked by the doctrine of

procedural default.

The procedural default doctrine precludes a federal habeas

court from “review[ing] a question of federal law decided by a

state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground

that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support

the judgment.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991)

(emphasis added). The United States Supreme Court has employed

a variety of tests to determine whether a state ground is “adequate.”

Among other things, state procedural rules have been held to be

inadequate if they are not “firmly established and regularly

followed,” Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 424 (1991) (quoting

James v. Kentucky, 466 U.S. 341, 348-51 (1984)); see also Barr v.

City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 146, 149 (1964), or if they are

“novel[]” and unforeseeable. NAACP v. Alabama ex rel.

Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 457 (1958); see also Ford, 498 U.S. at

424. 

First, the test ensures that federal review is not barred unless

a habeas petitioner had fair notice of the need to follow the state

procedural rule. As we said in Cabrera v. Barbo, 175 F.3d 307,

313 (3d Cir. 1999), “a petitioner should be on notice of how to

present his claims in the state courts if his failure to present them

is to bar him from advancing them in a federal court.” 

Second, the “‘firmly established and regularly followed’

test” prevents discrimination. “Novelty in procedural

requirements,” NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. at

457, can be used as a means of defeating claims that are disfavored

on the merits. If inconsistently applied procedural rules sufficed as

“adequate” grounds of decision, they could provide a convenient
This provision states in relevant part: 1

(1) Any petition under this subchapter, including a

11

pretext for state courts to scuttle federal claims without federal

review. The requirement of regular application ensures that review

is foreclosed by what may honestly be called “rules” – directions

of general applicability – rather than by whim or prejudice against

a claim or claimant.

In this case, as noted, the District Court held that the state

procedural rule on which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court based

its decision was not “firmly established and regularly followed” at

the relevant time. The Court’s analysis proceeded in three steps.

First, the Court identified the relevant rule as “the rule that

§ 9545(b)(1) operates as an absolute, jurisdictional bar to hearing

the merits of a late PCRA petition, and that no exceptions outside

those in the statute may save a petition filed more than one year

after the date judgment becomes final.” App. I at 13. Second, the

Court concluded that the relevant point in time was “the moment

petitioner violated the procedural rule; that is, at the time

Bronshtein’s one-year window under § 9545(b)(1) closed.” Id. 

Since direct review of Bronshtein’s conviction and sentence ended

when the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for a

writ of certiorari on October 20, 1997, the District Court concluded

that the critical date was October 20, 1998. Finally, the Court

found that the state procedural rule applied by the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court was not “firmly established and regularly followed”

on that date.

We agree with the District Court that the rule applied by the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court was not firmly established and

regularly applied until after Bronshtein missed the PCRA’s oneyear filing deadline. To be sure, the pertinent statutory provision,

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9545(b), which took effect on January 16,

1996, appears on its face to impose a one-year deadline in all cases

except those falling within three categories (none of which is

applicable here). Nevertheless, as the District Court observed, 1
second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within

one year of the date the judgment becomes final,

unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves

that:

(i) the failure to raise the claim

previously was the result of

interference by government officials

with the presentation of the claim in

violation of the Constitution or laws of

th is Co mmonw ealth or th e

Constitution or laws of the United

States;

(ii) the facts upon which the claim is

predicated were unknown to the

petitioner and could not have been

ascertained by the exercise of due

diligence; or

(iii) the right asserted is a

constitutional right that was

recognized by the Supreme Court of

the United States or the Supreme

Court of Pennsylvania after the time

period provided in this section and has

been held by that court to apply

retroactively.

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9545(b)(1).

12

strict enforcement of the provision did not begin immediately. 

Well before the enactment of this provision, the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court had begun to apply a “relaxed waiver

rule” in capital cases. See Commonwealth v. McKenna, 383 A.2d

174 (Pa. 1978). In McKenna, the Court stated that it bore a “duty

to transcend procedural rules” in capital cases because of the

“overwhelming public interest” in preventing unconstitutional

executions. Id. at 180-81. As we have observed, McKenna for a

time “firmly established that a claim of constitutional error in a
13

capital case would not be waived by a failure to preserve it.”

Szuchon v. Lehman, 273 F.3d 299, 326 (3d Cir. 2001).

Twenty years later, on November 23, 1998, the state

supreme court changed course in Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720

A.2d 693 (Pa. 1998). After noting that it had long been the Court’s

“‘practice’ to decline to apply ordinary waiver principles in capital

cases,” the Court stated that this rule had “in effect, virtually

eliminated any semblance of finality in capital cases.” Id. at 700.

The Court concluded that the “benefits of relaxed waiver at the

PCRA appellate stage” were greatly outweighed by the need for

finality and judicial efficiency, and the Court announced that the

relaxed waiver rule would “no longer [apply] in PCRA appeals.”

Id.

On December 21, 1998, the state supreme court held in

Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 722 A.2d 638 (Pa. 1998), that the

PCRA time bar applies to capital cases and is not superceded by the

relaxed waiver rule. Finally, on March 2, 1999, the state supreme

court held unequivocally in Commonwealth v. Banks, 726 A.2d

374 (Pa. 1999), that the PCRA time limits are jurisdictional and

thus not subject to judicial relaxation. Although one might argue

that either Albrecht or Peterkin marked the point when it became

firmly established that the PCRA time limits would be applied

literally in capital cases, our opinion in Fahy v. Horn, 240 F.3d

239, 245 (3d Cir. 2001), implies that the unavailability of judicially

created exceptions to the PCRA time limits was less than perfectly

clear until the state supreme court decided Banks. For present

purposes, however, it is not necessary for us to decide whether

Albrecht, Peterkin, or Banks marked the critical point in time

because Bronshtein’s one-year deadline expired before the earliest

of the three dates. As of October 20, 1998 – the one-year

anniversary of the conclusion of direct review in Bronshtein’s case

– Bronshtein did not have fair notice that he would not be given the

benefit of the “relaxed waiver” rule and that his failure to file his

PCRA petition within the one-year statutory deadline would result

in the dismissal of his petition. Moreover, holding Bronshtein

strictly to the one-year deadline would have denied him the more

lenient treatment that the state courts had allowed other capital

defendants up to that point. We thus agree with the District Court
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted such a rule 2

in at least one analogous context. See Commonwealth v. Lark, 746

A. 585 (Pa. 2000)(when ground for filing second PCRA petition

arises while first petition is still pending, petitioner may file second

petition within 60 days after final decision on first petition).

14

that the state procedural rule at issue in this case – the rule strictly

requiring a capital defendant to file a PCRA petition within one

year after the end of direct review – was not firmly established and

regularly followed at the time in question. 

Our analysis of the question of procedural default would

proceed along a different path if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,

when it abandoned the doctrine of “relaxed waiver,” had adopted

what might be termed a “transitional rule,” i.e., a rule imposing a

special filing deadline for those cases in which a PCRA petitioner’s

one-year filing period expired prior to the end of the “relaxed

waiver” era. Accordingly, it would have made sense for the state 2

supreme court to have adopted a rule requiring such petitioners to

file within some specified time after the termination of the doctrine

of “relaxed waiver.” However, no such transitional rule was

invoked by the state supreme court in this case, and none has been

called to our attention. The only state law ground that we may

consider in deciding the issue of procedural default in this case is

the general one-year deadline. Because this rule was not firmly

established and regularly applied on the date when Bronshtein’s

time ran out, the doctrine of procedural default does not apply in

this case. We thus turn to the merits of the claims on which the

District Court granted relief.

III.

Bronshtein argues (Claim I) that the trial court’s jury

instructions violated his right to due process because they permitted

the jury to convict him of first-degree murder on the theory of coconspirator liability without finding an essential element of the

offense, viz., that he had the specific intent to kill. Under

Pennsylvania law, a defendant may not be convicted of first-degree

murder under a co-conspirator liability theory unless the jury finds
Compare Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 158 (1986) 3

(“major participation in the felony committed, combined with

reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to satisfy the

[Eighth Amendment] culpability requirement”). 

We do not apply the deferential standards of review set out 4

in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) because this claim was not “adjudicated on

the merits” by the state supreme court. 

15

that the defendant personally had the specific intent to kill. See

Smith v. Horn, 120 F.3d 400, 410 (3d Cir. 1997). “The general

rule of law [in Pennsylvania] pertaining to the culpability of

conspirators is that each individual member of the conspiracy is

criminally responsible for the acts of his co-conspirators committed

in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. Wayne, 720

A.2d 456, 463 (Pa. 1998). However, “[t]o be guilty of first degree

murder, each co-conspirator must individually be found to possess

the mental state necessary to establish first degree murder – the

specific intent to kill.” Id. at 464 (emphasis in original). This 3

principle was settled at the time of Bronshtein’s trial. See

Commonwealth v. Huffman, 638 A.2d 961, 962 (Pa. 1994). 

In considering whether the jury instructions in this case

adequately conveyed this critical feature of Pennsylvania homicide

law, we focus initially on the language that is claimed to be 4

erroneous, but we must view this portion of the instructions “in the

context of the charge as a whole.” See Smith, 120 F.3d at 411.

“The proper inquiry is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that

the jury has applied the challenged instructions in a way that

violates the Constitution.” Id. (emphasis in original, citations and

internal quotation marks omitted); see Boyde v. California, 494

U.S. 370, 380 (1990).

In the present case, Bronshtein was charged, inter alia, with

first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. As we

hereafter explain, while the trial court’s instructions regarding the

first degree murder charge were such that the jury could have

convicted him of this charge without finding that he had a specific

intent to kill Gutman, the court’s instructions regarding conspiracy

to commit murder and the jury’s verdict of guilty on that charge
16

demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury made the

required finding of specific intent. Accordingly, we conclude that

any error in the first degree murder instructions was harmless.

The trial judge instructed the jury that Bronshtein could be

found guilty of first degree murder based on any of three separate

theories. First, the trial judge charged the jury, Bronshtein could

be found guilty as a principal if the jury found that “each and every

element of [the crime] was established as to him specifically . . . .”

App. V, Pt. 2 at 1692. The trial court then correctly instructed the

jury that the three elements needed to convict Bronshtein for the

first-degree murder of Alexander Gutman were (1) that Gutman

was killed, (2) that the defendant killed him, and (3) that the

defendant did so with the specific intent to kill. Id.

The trial judge also instructed the jury that Bronshtein could

be found guilty as an accomplice of the person who actually killed

Gutman but that, in order to do so, the jury would have to find that

Bronshtein had the specific intent to kill. The judge stated:

A defendant is guilty of a crime if he is an

accomplice of another person who commits the

crime . . . . 

He is an accomplice if and only if with the intent of

promotion or facilitating commission of the crime he

encourages the other person to commit it or aids,

agrees to aid or attempts to aid the other person in

planning or committing it . . . .

[I]n order to find the defendant guilty of first-degree

murder as an accomplice, you must find the

Commonwealth has proven beyond a reasonable

doubt that the defendant shared a specific intent to

kill Alexander Gutman with the active perpetrator

and encouraged or assisted the active perpetrator by

comparable overt behavior.

Remember when we talked about first-degree

murder? That’s the one that requires that specific
17

intent to kill? Yes, it is possible to convict the

defendant as an accomplice to that even if he’s not

the one who killed Mr. Gutman, but you’d have to

find that he shared that specific intent to kill

Alexander Gutman before you can find him guilty as

an accomplice, and that he assisted the active

perpetrator by some comparable overt behavior.

App. V, Pt. 2 at 1689-91 (emphasis added). 

Finally, the trial court instructed the jury that it could find

Bronshtein guilty of the various crimes with which he was charged

under the theory of co-conspirator liability. The court stated:

You may find the defendant [guilty] of either the

crime of murder, robbery or theft as a conspirator if

you’re satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt: First,

that the defendant agreed with this John Doe or Mr.

X that the defendant would aid John Doe or Mr. X in

committing either the crime of murder, robbery

and/or theft; second, that the defendant so agreed

with the intent of promoting or facilitating the

commission of the crime; third, that while the

agreement remained in effect, the crime of murder,

robbery and/or theft was committed by this John Doe

or Mr. X; and, fourth, that the crime of murder,

robbery and/or theft, while it may differ from the

agreed crime, was committed by John Doe or Mr. X

in furtherance of his and the defendant’s common

scheme.

What am I saying to you? If those four elements

have been established, then, if you find that the

defendant is guilty of the conspiracy, he is also guilty

of anything that John Doe or Mr. X did in

furtherance of it . . . .

[I]f you find those things, then, he can be found

guilty of whatever acts the co-conspirator did in the

furtherance of that agreement reached between them.
These supplemental instructions on first-degree murder 5

must be distinguished from the supplemental instruction on

conspiracy, which we discuss below. 

18

Id. at 1687-89. 

Unfortunately, this instruction misleadingly suggested that

Bronshtein could be found guilty of first-degree murder even if he

did not have the specific intent to kill. According to a literal

reading of the instruction, the jury could find Bronshtein guilty of

first-degree murder if it found that he had conspired to commit the

robbery and that another conspirator had killed Gutman in

furtherance of the robbery. Compounding the error, the instruction

went on to say that if the jury found that the four elements set out

above were established, Bronshtein was “guilty of anything that

John Doe or Mr. X did in furtherance of [the conspiracy].”

While the instructions on liability as a principal or

accomplice stressed the need to find a specific intent to kill, these

instructions did not cure the defect in the instructions on coconspirator liability. As the District Court put it: “A reasonable

jury could have understood the co-conspirator language to be an

alternate means to establish first degree murder, sans a finding of

specific intent to kill.”’ Dist. Ct. Op. at 27. 

For similar reasons, the flaw in the co-conspirator liability

instructions was not adequately cured by the supplemental

instructions on first-degree murder that were given, at the jury’s

request, during its deliberations. At that time, the trial judge gave 5

the jury the following “summary on first-degree murder”: “what

sets [first-degree murder] apart from second- and third-degree

murder is that element of the specific intent to kill either

personally, if you find that he did the act, or as a co-conspirator of

one who had the specific intent to kill[.]” App. V, Pt. 2 at 1725.

Although these supplemental instructions were accurate, they did

not specifically address the theory of co-conspirator liability.

“Language that merely contradicts and does not explain a

constitutionally infirm instruction will not suffice to absolve the

infirmity. A reviewing court has no way of knowing which of the
The jury specifically found Bronshtein guilty of conspiracy 6

to commit murder, as well as conspiracy to commit robbery and

conspiracy to commit theft. Significantly, the jury’s verdict did not

19

two irreconcilable instructions the jurors applied in reaching their

verdict.” Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 322 (1985). See also

Whitney v. Horn, 280 F.3d 240, 256 (3d Cir. 2002). Viewing all

of the first degree murder instructions together, we conclude that

there is a reasonable probability that the jury, consistent with their

terms, could have proceeded on the incorrect belief that a specific

intent to kill was not needed in order to convict Bronshtein of firstdegree murder on the theory of co-conspirator liability. We thus

hold that the jury was improperly instructed on the theory of coconspirator liability. 

We further hold, however, that this error was harmless. As

we explained in Smith, 120 F.3d at 416-17, an error of the type

present here is subject to harmless error analysis. “In a collateral

proceeding, the standard for harmlessness is ‘whether the error had

substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the

jury’s verdict.’” Id. at 417 (quoting California v. Roy, 519 U.S. 3,

5 (1996) (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 at 637

(1993)). In Smith, we elaborated:

The Supreme Court has held that if a habeas court

“is in grave doubt as to the harmlesssness of an

error,” habeas relief must be granted. O’Neal v.

McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 437 (1995). Thus, if the

court concludes from the record that the error had a

“substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the

verdict, or if it is in “grave doubt” whether that is so,

the error cannot be deemed harmless. See Roy, 519

U.S. at 5. 

120 F.3d at 418 (parallel citations omitted). 

Here, the jury’s verdict finding Bronshtein guilty of

conspiracy to commit murder convinces us that the error in the

instructions on co-conspirator liability was harmless. After stating 6
“lump” the object offenses together:

Court Clerk: How say you on 3279-93.5,

sec o n d co u nt, criminal

conspiracy, conspiracy to

commit murder?

Presiding Juror: Guilty.

Court Clerk: How say you on conspiracy to

commit to robbery?

Presiding Juror: Guilty.

Court Clerk: How say you on conspiracy to

commit theft?

Presiding Juror: Guilty.

App. V, Pt. 2 at 1747.

20

that Bronshtein was charged with conspiracy to commit murder,

robbery and theft, the trial judge stated:

[I]n order to find the defendant guilty of conspiracy

to commit any one of those or all of them, you must

be satisfied initially that the two elements of a

conspiracy have been proven beyond a reasonable

doubt. What are they? First, that the defendant

agreed to aid another person. The Commonwealth

merely defines that person or identifies that person

as John Doe or Mr. X, meaning they don’t know who

it is.

That the defendant agreed to aid another person,

whoever it was, in the planning or commission of the

crimes of murder, robbery or theft; and, second, that

the defendant did so with the intent of promoting or

facilitating commission of the crimes of murder,

robbery and/or theft. Those are the two elements. 
Bronshtein contends that these instructions “lumped 7

together the three offenses of murder, robbery and theft and created

a reasonable likelihood that the jury would convict [him] of

conspiracy to commit all three offenses merely because he

conspired to commit one of them and Karlitsky [or whoever the

second individual at the store was] then committed the others.”

Bronshtein’s Br. at 58. In other words, Bronshtein argues that the

jury might have understood the instructions to mean that they could

find Bronshtein guilty of conspiracy to commit murder if they

found merely that Bronshtein intentionally aided in planning or

carrying out a theft. Such a reading of the instructions is contrary

to common sense and, in our view, unlikely, but because the trial

judge gave the supplemental instructions discussed above, we need

not decide whether these instructions standing alone would be

sufficient to establish harmless error. We note that, although the

District Court held that the error in the co-conspirator liability

instructions was not harmless, the District Court did not consider

the impact of the supplemental instructions on conspiracy to

commit murder that were given during the jury deliberations. 

21

Id. at 1684-85. The most reasonable interpretation of these

instructions is that, in order to find Bronshtein guilty of murder, the

jury had to find that he had “the intent of promoting or facilitating

commission of the crime[] of murder.” 

7

This point was driven home with the supplemental

instructions on conspiracy to commit murder that the court gave

during the jury deliberations. As the Supreme Court has noted, this

is the point in a trial when “[o]ne would expect most of [a jury’s]

reflection about the meaning of the instructions to occur[.]”

Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. at 321 n.7. The trial judge in this

case told the jury:

[I]n order to find the defendant guilty of conspiracy

to commit murder, you must be satisfied that two

elements of the conspiracy have been proven beyond

a reasonable doubt: First, that the defendant agreed

to aid another person, namely, this John Doe or Mr.

X, in either the planning or the commission of the
22

crime of murder. That’s the first element. He

agreed to aid another person in either the planning or

the commission of the crime of murder – first

element.

Second, that the defendant did so with the intent of

promoting or facilitating the commission of the

crime of murder.

Id. at 1733-34. 

After receiving these instructions, the jury found Bronshtein

guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. In returning that verdict,

the jury presumably followed the court’s instructions relating to

that offense, see Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000),

and therefore the jury must have found that Bronshtein participated

in “the planning or the commission of the crime of murder” and

that he “did so with the intent of promoting or facilitating the

commission of the crime of murder.” In other words, the jury must

have found that Bronshtein had the specific intent to kill. It

follows that the error in the instructions on the theory of coconspirator liability cannot have affected the jury’s verdict on the

charge of first-degree murder. Even if the jury based that verdict

on the theory of co-conspirator liability, and even if the jury

proceeded on the erroneous belief that this theory did not require

proof of a specific intent to kill, the jury’s guilty verdict on the

charge of conspiracy to commit murder shows that the jury found

that Bronshtein had that intent. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Wayne, 720

A.2d 456 (Pa. 1998), is instructive. In Wayne, the Court concluded

that the defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to

object to jury instructions that, like the ones here, permitted the jury

to convict him of first-degree murder as a co-conspirator without

finding that he had the specific intent to kill. See Wayne, 720 A.2d

at 465. The Court reached this conclusion because the defendant

was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. See id. The

Court explained:

A conspiracy to kill presupposes the deliberate
By contrast, in Commonwealth v. Huffman, 638 A.2d 961, 8

963 (Pa. 1994), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that an

error in the jury instructions similar to the one in Wayne (and the

one here) was not harmless. However, in that case the defendant

was convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary but not conspiracy

to commit murder. See Wayne, 720 A.2d at 465 n.7. Obviously,

conspiracy to commit burglary, unlike conspiracy to commit

murder, does not require proof of an intent to kill. 

23

premeditated shared specific intent to commit

murder. . . . In this case, the conspiracy was a

conspiracy to kill. The conspiracy had only one

object, the deliberate decision to take a life. Once

this jury determined that appellant was guilty of

conspiracy, given the sole object of that conspiracy,

the only logical conclusion to reach is that this jury

also determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that

appellant possessed the specific intent to kill.

Id. (emphasis in original). See also Commonwealth v. Bailey, 344

A.2d 869, 877 n.16 (Pa. 1975) (“A conspiracy to commit murder

would necessarily indicate that the killing was ‘willful, deliberate,

and premeditated.’”); Commonwealth v. Stein, 585 A.2d 1048,

1050 n.6 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) (“[T]he ‘intent’ element required to

be proven by the Commonwealth is the same for accomplice

liability as for conspiracy.”). We agree with this analysis and hold 8

that the error in the instructions on co-conspirator liability was

harmless under the standard applicable in a federal habeas

proceeding. 

Bronshtein contends that our decision in Smith shows that

Wayne “does not control here,” Bronshtein’s Br. at 57, but Smith

is readily distinguishable. There, the conspiracy instructions were

so ambiguous that they created the reasonable likelihood that the

jury convicted the defendant of conspiracy to commit murder

without finding that he had the intent to enter into the conspiracy

to commit murder. See Smith, 120 F.3d at 412-13. Furthermore,

the trial court’s attempt to explain the ambiguous instructions

actually made matters worse: it “conveyed the impression that
24

Smith was criminally liable for conspiracy to commit murder if he

intended to enter into a conspiracy to commit robbery[.]” Id. at

413 (emphasis in original). In short, in Smith, unlike Wayne or the

present case, it was reasonably likely that the jury did not find that

the defendant had the intent to enter into a conspiracy to commit

murder, i.e, a specific intent to kill. Here, as we have explained,

the supplemental instructions were very clear in telling the jury that

it could not find Bronshtein guilty of conspiracy to commit murder

unless it found that he had that intent. For these reasons, we must

reverse the decision of the District Court insofar as it relates to

Bronshtein’s first-degree murder conviction. 

IV.

We now address Bronshtein’s argument (Claim IX ) that the

trial court violated his right to due process by failing to instruct the

jury that under Pennsylvania law a defendant who is convicted of

first-degree murder must receive either a sentence of death or a

sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The District Court held that this claim has merit. On appeal, the

Commonwealth contests the District Court’s holding on two

grounds. 

A. 

The Commonwealth’s first argument, as we understand it,

is that Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), the

seminal Supreme Court case on which Bronshtein’s claim is

predicated -- is inapplicable because Simmons does not apply

retroactively to cases in which direct review ended prior to that

decision. See O’Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151 (1997).

However, the District Court properly rejected this argument

because Simmons was decided long before the judgment in

Bronshtein’s case became final for retroactivity purposes on

October 27, 1997, the date when the Supreme Court denied

certiorari. See Beard v. Banks, 124 S. Ct. 2504, 2510 (2004)

(“State convictions are final ‘for purposes of retroactivity analysis

when the availability of direct appeal to the state courts has been

exhausted and the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari

has elapsed or a timely filed petition has been finally denied.’”)
25

(citation omitted). Accordingly, the Commonwealth’s argument is

meritless. 

B. 

The Commonwealth’s remaining contention is that the

prosecution’s arguments and the testimony that it elicited at the

penalty phase did not put the issue of Bronshtein’s future

dangerousness at issue in the way needed to trigger Simmons and

the subsequent related cases of Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S.

36 (2001), and Kelly v. South Carolina, 534 U.S. 246 (2002).

Because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not adjudicate this

claim on the merits, the standards of review set out in 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d) are inapplicable. Furthermore, because the

Commonwealth does not argue that either Shafer or Kelly

announced “new rules” within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489

U.S. 288 (1989), we need not and do not decide whether such an

argument would have merit, see Horn v. Banks, 536 U.S. 266, 271

(2002), and we consider Shafer and Kelly to be applicable in this

appeal. 

In Simmons, the prosecutor explicitly argued that the jury

should impose a death sentence in order to protect society from the

defendant. The prosecutor stated that a death sentence would be “a

response of society to someone who is a threat” and would be “an

act of self-defense.” 512 U.S. at 157. The Supreme Court held

that under these circumstances the trial judge was required to

instruct the jury that the defendant, if not sentenced to death, would

have received a sentence of life imprisonment without the

possibility of parole. The plurality opinion stated that “where the

defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and state law prohibits

the defendant’s release on parole, due process requires that the

sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible.”

Id. at 156 (emphasis added). However, as we noted in Rompilla v.

Horn, 355 F.3d 233, 265 (3d Cir.), cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 27

(2004), Justice O’Connor’s controlling concurrence may be read as

adopting a narrower holding, namely, that the dispositive question

is not whether a defendant’s future dangerous is “at issue” but

whether “the prosecution argues that the defendant will pose a

threat to society in the future.” 512 U.S. at 177 (O’Connor, J.,
26

concurring in the judgment). See also Shafer, 532 U.S. at 49.

As we also observed in Rompilla, 355 F.3d at 266, the

holding in Simmons was arguably broadened in Kelly. There the

prosecutor stated in his penalty phase opening: “I hope you never

in your lives again have to experience what you are experiencing

right now. Being some thirty feet away from such a person.

Murderer.” 534 U.S. at 248. The prosecution then presented

evidence that while in prison, Kelly had made a knife, had

attempted to escape from prison, and had planned to hold a female

guard as a hostage. See id. The state also brought out evidence of

“Kelly’s sadism at an early age, and his inclination to kill anyone

who rubbed him the wrong way.” Id. at 248-49 (citation omitted).

During its closing argument, the state referred to Kelly as “the

butcher of Batesburg,” “Bloody Billy,” and “Billy the Kid.” Id. at

249-50. In addition, the prosecutor told the jury that “Kelly doesn’t

have any mental illness. He’s intelligent . . . . He’s quick-witted.

Doesn’t that make somebody a little more dangerous . . . .

[D]oesn’t that make him more unpredictable for [the victim] . . . .

murderers will be murderers. And he is the cold-blooded one right

over there.” Id. at 250. 

The Kelly Court concluded that the trial judge had an

obligation to give a parole ineligibility instruction. The Court

stated that “[t]he prosecutor accentuated the clear implication of

future dangerousness raised by the evidence and placed the case

within the four corners of Simmons.” Id. at 255. The Court

observed that “[e]vidence of future dangerousness under Simmons

is evidence with a tendency to prove dangerousness in the future;

its relevance to that point does not disappear merely because it

might support other inferences or be described in other terms.” Id.

at 254. The Court also acknowledged that “it may well be that the

evidence in a substantial proportion, if not all, capital cases will

show a defendant likely to be dangerous in the future.” Id. at 254

n.4. But the Court declined to decide whether a defendant is

entitled to a parole ineligibility instruction “when the State’s

evidence shows future dangerousness but the prosecutor does not

argue it.” Id.

In the present case, the prosecution not only put
27

Bronshtein’s future dangerousness “at issue” but “argue[d] that the

defendant [would] pose a threat to society in the future.” Simmons,

512 U.S. at 177 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment).

During its closing argument at the penalty stage, the prosecutor

made the following statements:

Ladies and gentlemen, the medical testimony in this

case was significant because it tells you something

about the psyche or persona of this man. He can’t

conform to what is required in society. The doctors

have told you that he’s anti-social. He’s prone to

lying. He’s prone to stealing. He’s prone to living

a life of crime.

Whatever the seeds were that got him there, they’re

planted, and that tree has grown. He’s grown into a

twenty-two-year-old person now regardless of how

the seeds were planted.

You have to take a look at what effect that has had

and what effect it had at the time he committed these

crimes. The doctors have told you he’s a man that

can’t conform to the needs of society. 

App. VI at 1909-10 (emphasis added).

Even without considering “the medical testimony” to which

the prosecutor referred, it is evident that these comments, although

more clinical than those in Simmons, conveyed the message that

Bronshtein presented a threat of future lawlessness. We agree with

the District Court’s evaluation of these comments:

[T]he references to Bronshtein’s inability to

‘conform to what is required in society’ and the fact

that he was ‘anti-social,’ in the context of the present

and the future by reference to what Bronshtein is

“going to” and “prone to” do, make clear that the

Commonwealth was suggesting to the jury that it

should impose the death penalty because of

Bronshtein’s inability to function in society in the
28

future. The prosecutor’s assertion that [Bronshtein]

was “prone to living a life of crime,” when placed in

the context of the stark choice of life in prison or

death, would suggest to any juror that petitioner

would pose a danger to society if he was released

from prison. The none-too-subtle implication of

these arguments is that Bronshtien should be put to

death because if he were ever released, he could not

“conform to the needs of society,’ and was “going

to” continue “living a life of crime” and engaging in

dangerous, violent conduct. 

Dist. Ct. Op. at 36-37. Thus, the import of the penalty phase

closing in itself is clear enough.

When the “the medical testimony” to which the prosecutor

referred in the closing is also taken into account, the significance

of the prosecutor’s statements becomes even clearer. At the

penalty phase, Bronshtein called a psychologist, Gerald Cooke, to

testify to “psychological mitigating factors.” App. VI at 1835. Dr.

Cooke testified that Bronshtein suffered from paranoid personality

disorder, anti-social personality disorder, and depression. See id.

at 1838, 1840. On cross-examination, the Commonwealth elicited

from Dr. Cooke a litany of dangerous tendencies that persons with

these disorders often exhibit. The questioning went as follows: 

Q: One of the features of [a person with an antisocial personality disorder] is he tends to be

irresponsible; correct?

A: Well, one of the features of anti-social

personality can be irresponsibility. I don’t

know if that’s necessarily a criteria that fits

him. He fits a number of the other criteria.

Q: It can be anti-social behavior; correct?

A: Absolutely.

Q: Including criminal activity; correct?
29

A: Correct.

Q: Lying?

A: Yes.

Q: Stealing?

A: Yes.

Q: Fighting?

A: Yes.

Q: Being very aggressive; correct?

A: Yes.

Q: They can be prone to being irritable; correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Prone to getting repeatedly into physical

fights; correct?

A: Can be. . . .

Q: Failed to conform to social norms; correct?

A: That is true.

Q: Repeatedly can perform anti-social acts;

correct?

A: Yes. . . .

Q: They also tend to express no remorse, don’t

they?

A: That’s true.
30

Q: No remorse about the effects of their

behavior on other people?

A: They often don’t have insight to the effects of

their behavior on themselves or on other

people.

Q: In other words, a lot of people who have antisocial personality disorders can’t play by the

rules in a civilized society; correct?

A: True.

Id. at 1855-1858. 

The prosecutor then questioned Dr. Cooke regarding

Bronshtein’s paranoid personality disorder:

Q: Dr. Cooke, with regard to the paranoid

personality disorder, they’re also people that

can react quickly with anger; correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And are likely to counterattack if they feel

threatened; correct?

A: They are likely to see themselves as being

threatened, and many of them sort of follow

the kind of attitude that the best defense is

offense.

Q: In other words, they’re more likely to feel

threatened than the normal person; correct?

A: True, and that’s what being paranoid means.

Q: Because they’re more likely to feel

threatened, they’re more likely to

counterattack because of the threat they feel;
31

correct?

A: That is true.

Q: They can bear grudges for a long time;

correct?

A: True.

Q: And they can even get to the point where they

never forgive different insults people have

done to them; correct?

A: True.

Q: They’re viewed as secretive?

A: Yes.

Q: Devious?

A. Sometimes.

Q: Scheming?

A: Sometimes.

Q: Have great difficulties accepting selfcriticism?

A: That’s true.

Q: Dr. Cooke, Mr. Bronshtein has a combination

of the two – paranoid personality disorder and

anti-social personality disorder – doesn’t he?

A: And depression.

. . . 

Q: Doctor, it’s certainly a potentially lethal
32

combination of personality disorders, isn’t it?

A: Could be.

Id. at 1858-1860. 

The Commonwealth also presented rebuttal evidence

through its own mental health expert, Dr. Timothy J. Michaels.

The Commonwealth elicited the following testimony from Dr.

Michaels:

Q: [W]hat is your agreement or disagreement

with the diagnoses which [Dr. Cooke] has

made?

A: . . . I certainly agree with the anti-social

personality disorder. What that means is, this

young man has gotten in trouble throughout

his life. He doesn’t learn by experience.

He’s impulsive. He continues to get in

trouble within the prison system. He acts out,

justifies his behavior. So even after he has

been incarcerated, there’s ongoing

difficulties.

. . . When you’re anti-social, you don’t follow

the rules. You don’t learn by experience.

You think you’re right and other people are

wrong. . . .

I also agree with the paranoid personality

disorder. . . .

He’s paranoid. Basically, he’s looking over

his shoulder. He doesn’t trust people, doesn’t

trust most people. . . .

This combination of not trusting people and

then acting out, not following the rules is an

explosive combination in my opinion. . . . So
33

I see that as a serious, very serious behavioral

problem that this young man has.

. . .

Q: Dr. Michaels, what findings did you make

with regard to this personality disorder or

these personality disorders with having

remorse?

A: . . . Individuals who are anti-social don’t have

remorse. They don’t learn. They’re not sorry

for their behavior. They don’t learn from

experience. So they do this over again.

And instead of being remorseful,

unfortunately there is acceleration of

behavior. I think I can get away with it –

even though you get caught. I can outsmart

the people[.]

App. VI at 1869-71, 1874. 

Taken together, the testimony of Drs. Cooke and Michaels

suggested the following: that Bronshtein’s “combination of

personality disorders” could be “lethal” or “explosive”; that he was

prone to lie, scheme, steal, fight, and act very aggressively; that he

was much more likely than a normal person to distrust others, bear

grudges, feel threatened, and respond with a counterattack; that he

was unable to “play by the rules in a civilized society”; that he was

probably remorseless, and unlikely to learn from experience, and

thus prone to commit the same crimes “over again”; and that there

would probably be an “acceleration” of his anti-social behavior. 

The prosecution’s penalty phase closing must be viewed as

incorporating these points. As noted, the prosecutor asked the jury

to recall “the medical testimony,” referred twice to what “the

doctors” had told the jury, and summarized that testimony as saying

that Bronshtein is “anti-social,” “prone to living a life of crime,”

and “can’t conform to the needs of society.” In any realistic sense

of the concept, the prosecutor “argue[d] that the defendant [would]
The law concerning § 9711(d)(6) is not in dispute and, now 9

that the specific language used by the trial court has been

challenged, there is no reason to expect that the same instruction

will be repeated if a new penalty-phase proceeding is held.

34

pose a threat to society in the future.” Simmons, 512 U.S. at 177

(O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). And it goes without

saying that the Bronshtein’s future dangerousness was put at issue

within the meaning of Kelly. In the words of that decision, “[t]he

prosecutor accentuated the clear implication of future

dangerousness raised by the evidence.” 534 U.S. at 255. We thus

reject the Commonwealth’s argument that the prosecution’s

presentation at the penalty phase was insufficient to trigger the

obligation imposed by Simmons, Shafer, and Kelly. 

Having considered and rejected the Commonwealth’s

arguments regarding Simmons and its progeny, we have before us

no ground for reversing the order of the District Court insofar as it

held that Bronshtein’s death sentence is unconstitutional under

those precedents. In light of our decision on this issue, we have no

occasion to decide whether, as the District Court held, that sentence

is unconstitutional for the additional reason that the jury was

improperly instructed regarding the aggravating factor set out in 42

Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9711(d)(6) (commission of homicide while

perpetrating felony) and that there was insufficient evidence to

prove that factor.9

V. 

We now consider the claims raised in Bronshtein’s crossappeal. As noted, Bronshtein asks us to issue a certificate of

appealability on these claims, and we must do so if he has made “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). On the merits, our review of the decision of

the District Court is plenary, as the District Court relied exclusively

on the state court record and did not hold an evidentiary hearing.

Hartey v. Vaughn, 186 F.3d 367, 371 (3d Cir. 1999).

A.
35

Bronshtein argues that the prosecution violated Batson v.

Kentucky, supra, by exercising a peremptory challenge based on

religion and ethnic background. During collective voir dire, the

trial court asked the prospective jurors whether they had “any

moral, religious or other ethical beliefs which would prevent

[them] from considering the imposition of the death penalty[.]”

Bronshtein’s App. II at 293. Ten of the 30 prospective jurors –

including Jan Eidelson – responded in the affirmative.

Later, during individual voir dire, defense counsel asked

another prospective juror, Nanette Phyllis Honigman, whether she

was “of Jewish heritage,” and she responded that she was not.

App. II at 420-21. After Ms. Honigman was dismissed for cause

on unrelated grounds, the trial judge raised the issue whether it was

appropriate to ask potential jurors about their religions. Id. at 421.

The judge suggested that such an inquiry would not be reasonable

unless a juror expressed an unwillingness to consider a death

verdict for religious reasons. Id. Defense counsel explained that

his only reason for doing so “would be for the possible Batson

issues, it’s whether the juror was of the same Jewish heritage as

Mr. Bronshtein.” Id. The prosecutor seems to have taken the

position that Batson does not apply to peremptory challenges based

on religion, while defense counsel and Bronshtein himself

contended that striking a prospective juror because the person is

Jewish would be a challenge based on “nationality” or “race” and

would thus fall within Batson. Id. at 423-24. The trial judge then

stated that Judaism is “a religion, it’s not a nationality” and ruled

that a peremptory challenge based on Judaism did not present “a

Batson issue.” Id. at 424-25. However, because the judge thought

that an inquiry into a juror’s religion might be justified for the

limited reason of exploring whether the juror would be willing to

consider a death sentence, the judge asked counsel to provide

advance warning before asking any questions along those lines. Id.

at 425. 

Immediately after this exchange, the prosecutor stated that

he wanted to ask Ms. Eidelson about her religion “only because of

the educational background” noted in her information sheet,

namely, that she had written that she had attended a school called

“Friends Central.” App. II at 426. The trial judge responded that
36

this inquiry was legitimate because “it cannot be disputed that if

someone is a Quaker they hold a religious belief that would prevent

them, probably, from serving on this jury.” Id.

When Ms. Eidelson came up for individual voir dire a short

time later, the trial judge questioned her first. In response to the

court’s questions, she stated that she could vote to impose a death

penalty but that “it would not be a comfortable thing” and “would

[not] be easy.” App. II at 429, 435. She expressed reservations

about being sequestered for the two weeks that the trial was

expected to last, stating that she “wouldn’t want to be in a situation

where [she] could not have contact with [her] support system[.]”

Id. at 429. She also stated that, although she was a graduate of

Friends Central High School, she was not a Quaker. Id. at 437.

Finally, when the judge asked her whether she “would have any

tendency to be biased or prejudiced against [Bronshtein] because

he is a Russian-Jew,” Ms. Eidelson answered that she did not think

that she would and added: “Well, I need to let you know, my dad’s

parents came from Russia.” Id. at 439.

Defense counsel questioned Eidelson next. In response to

his questioning, she stated that her “dad’s parents were RussianJews” and that her mother was Jewish. App. II at 440. The

prosecutor then questioned Ms. Eidelson briefly and inquired only

whether, if the jury voted for the death penalty and the jurors were

polled, she would be able to stand up in open court and state that

she had voted to impose that sentence. App. II at 443-45. She

answered in the affirmative. Id. at 445.

After Ms. Eidelson left the courtroom, defense counsel

stated that she was acceptable, but the prosecutor exercised a

peremptory strike against her. App. II at 445. Defense counsel

objected, claiming that the prosecution had exercised the strike in

violation of Batson, but the trial judge rejected the objection

without explanation. Id. at 446.

On direct appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found it

unnecessary to resolve the question whether “‘Russian-Jewish’ is

an ethnic classification for the purposes of a Batson claim[.]”

Bronshtein, 691 A.2d at 915. First, the Court held that Bronshtein
37

“failed to develop a record setting forth the race or ethnicity of the

rest of the venire or the jurors eventually empaneled as required by

[Commonwealth v. Simmons, 662 A.2d 621 (Pa. 1995)].” Second,

the Court stated:

[T]he record reveals that the prospective juror

equivocated on the death penalty on moral, religious

and philosophical grounds and expressed serious

reservations about serving on the jury because it

would entail being separated from her ‘support

group’ during the anticipated two weeks of

sequestration. . . . Reasons such as these have been

found by this court to be a proper basis for

exercising a peremptory challenge.

Id.

The District Court discussed Bronshtein’s claim in some

detail. See Aug. 16, 2001 Mem. at 2-8. The District Court

expressed disagreement with the state courts on three grounds. The

District Court opined that “it is likely that the trial judge was wrong

on the issue of whether Jews were a cognizable group under

Batson.” Id. at 4. The District Court also disagreed with the state

supreme court’s view that Batson “requires a defendant [to]

produce evidence of the race of all venirepersons struck by the

prosecutor, the race of prospective jurors stricken by the defense,

and the racial makeup of the final jury selected.” Id. at 8. The

District Court “read Batson to be far less exacting in its evidentiary

requirements” and stated that “there are many evidentiary avenues

a petitioner may travel to bolster his Batson claims.” Id. Finally,

the District Court disagreed with the state supreme court’s

approach in rejecting Bronshtein’s claim on the ground that the

record revealed legitimate grounds on which the strike of Ms.

Eidelson could have been based. Id. at 6. The District Court

wrote:

Batson requires the prosecutor to reveal her actual

reasons for striking a juror. Where the prosecutor

has not done so, whether on her own initiative or

because of the trial court’s ruling, an appellate or
38

habeas court should not later divine reasons that

might have motivated the prosecutor, however

tempting that may be, and regardless of how

abundant or logical the possible reasons may seem.

Id. (emphasis in original).

The District Court nevertheless rejected Bronshtein’s Batson

claim on the ground that he had failed to make out a prima facie

case. The Court noted that “[t]he only record evidence petitioner

pointed to at trial” or in the federal habeas proceeding was “the

undisputed fact that the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to

exclude from the jury the only person in the venire who shared

petitioner’s Russian-Jewish ancestry.” Aug. 16, 2001 Mem. at 6-7.

The District Court also noted that “it was petitioner’s counsel, not

the prosecutor, who asked two jurors whether they were Jewish”

and that “[n]othing in the record indicate[d] that the prosecutor was

interested in whether the jurors shared a common ethnic heritage

with the defendant.” Id. at 7-8.

Because one of the grounds given by the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court for rejecting Bronshtein’s claim was his failure to

develop the record in accordance with one of that Court’s prior

decisions, Commonwealth v. Simmons, 662 A.2d 621 (Pa. 1995),

we begin by discussing the question of procedural default. We

hold that consideration of Bronshtein’s Batson claim is not barred

for two reasons. First, the Commonwealth has not argued that the

claim is procedurally barred, and we are not required to raise this

issue sua sponte. See Smith v. Horn, 120 F.3d at 408-09. Second,

we understand Commonwealth v. Simmons to represent an

interpretation of what Batson requires, not an independent state

procedural rule. In Commonwealth v. Simmons, the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court accurately summarized Batson’s holding as

follows:

To sustain a prima facie case of improper use of

peremptory challenges, a defendant must establish

the following: (1) the defendant is a member of a

cognizable racial group and the prosecutor exercised

peremptory challenges to remove members of the
39

defendant’s race from the venire; (2) the defendant

can then rely on the fact that the use of peremptory

challenges permits “those to discriminate who are a

mind [sic] to discriminate; and, (3) the defendant,

through facts and circumstances, must raise an

inference that the prosecutor excluded members of

the venire on account of their race. . . . 

662 A.2d at 631. The Court then continued:

This third prong requires defendant to make a record

specifically identifying the race of all the

venirepersons removed by the prosecution, the race

of the jurors who served and the race of jurors

acceptable to the Commonwealth who were stricken

by the defense.

Id. (emphasis added). It thus seems clear that the Commonwealth

v. Simmons procedural requirements represent an interpretation of

Batson, not a state procedural rule.

We therefore proceed to the merits of Bronshtein’s claim.

Because this claim was “adjudicated on the merits” in state court,

the narrow standards of review set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)

apply. We must thus decide whether the state supreme court’s

“adjudication of the claim . . . resulted in a decision that was

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (emphasis added).

A state court adjudication is “contrary to” Supreme Court

precedent if it results from the application of “a rule that

contradicts the governing law set forth” by the Supreme Court or

is inconsistent with a Supreme Court decision in a case involving

“materially indistinguishable” facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.

362, 405-06 (2000). “A state court decision fails the ‘unreasonable

application’ prong only ‘if the court identifies the correct governing

rule from the Supreme Court’s cases but unreasonably applies it to

the facts of the particular case or if the state court either

unreasonably extends a legal principle from the Supreme Court’s
40

precedent to a new context where it should not apply or

unreasonably refuses to extend the principle to a new context

where it should apply.’” Rico v. Leftridge-Byrd, 340 F.3d 178, 181

(3d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

Before applying these standards to the present case, we note

that we agree with the District Court that the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court clearly misinterpreted Batson. First, Batson does

not invariably demand compliance with the procedural

requirements set out in Commonwealth v. Simmons, 662 A.2d at

631. It is noteworthy that Batson discussed what a criminal

defendant must do to establish a prima facie case without hinting

that a defendant must always satisfy anything like the rigid

Commonwealth v. Simmons requirements. More important,

Batson’s specific examples of how a prima facie case may be

established make it clear that the Commonwealth v. Simmons

requirements need not always be met. Batson stated that “a

‘pattern’ of strikes against black jurors included in the particular

venire might give rise to an inference of discrimination.” 476 U.S.

at 97. In other words, a stark pattern – say, peremptorily striking

numerous African American jurors and no others – could suffice

without the creation of a record regarding “the race of the jurors

who served and the race of the jurors acceptable to the

[prosecution] who were stricken by the defense.” Commonwealth

v. Simmons, 662 A.2d at 631. Batson further stated that a

“prosecutor’s questions and statements during voir dire

examination and in exercising his challenges may support or refute

an inference of discriminatory purpose.” 476 U.S. at 97. Thus, in

some circumstances, suspicious questioning, coupled with strikes

that seem to implement the thrust of the questioning, may be

enough. In short, a prima facie case may be established by “all

relevant circumstances.” Id. at 96. While the factors noted in

Simmons are certainly relevant, in the words of the District Court,

“there are many evidentiary avenues a petitioner may travel to

bolster his Batson claims.” Aug. 16, 2001 Mem. at 8.

Second, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clearly

misinterpreted Batson insofar as it rejected Bronshtein’s claim on

the ground that the record suggested legitimate reasons that could

have motivated the prosecutor to exercise the contested peremptory
41

challenge. Under Batson, if the objecting party establishes a prima

facie case, the party exercising the challenge must state its actual

reasons, and the trial judge must make a finding regarding the

challenging party’s motivation. See 476 U.S. at 97-98.

In light of our conclusion that the state supreme court

misinterpreted Batson, we conclude that the state supreme court’s

decision fails to satisfy the standards set out in 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d)(1). The “contrary to” prong is violated because the state

supreme court “applie[d] a rule that contradicts the governing law

set forth” by the Supreme Court, Williams, 529 U.S at 405. And

the “unreasonable application” prong is also contravened because

the state supreme court did not “identif[y] the correct governing

rule from the Supreme Court’s cases.” Rico, 340 F.3d at 181. It

does not follow, however, that Bronshtein is entitled to relief.

A state prisoner’s federal habeas petition may be granted

“only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a). Thus, if a petitioner’s custody does not in fact violate

federal law – i.e., if the petitioner’s claims fail even de novo review

– the petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief regardless of the

correctness of the state court’s analysis of those claims. This

conclusion follows naturally from the longstanding rule that federal

courts will not entertain habeas petitions to correct errors that do

not undermine the lawfulness of a petitioner’s detention. See

McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 135 (1934) (errors may not be

attacked on one count of indictment where sentence was lawfully

imposed after conviction on another count), overruled on other

grounds, Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (1968).

Our conclusion also follows naturally from the language of

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under the “contrary to” prong of §

2254(d)(1), it is the state supreme court’s “decision,” not its

reasoning, that must be “contrary to” clearly established Supreme

Court precedent. As we put it in Matteo v. Superintendent, SCI

Albion, 171 F.3d 877, 888 (3d Cir. 1999) (en banc) (emphasis

added), the “contrary to” prong applies when “Supreme Court

precedent requires the contrary outcome.” Likewise, our decision

in Werts v. Vaughn, 228 F.3d 178, 196-97 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting
We therefore have no need to address the question whether 10

Bronshtein would be entitled to relief if he had shown that the

peremptory challenge at issue was based on “religious affiliation,”

see United States v. DeJesus, 347 F.3d 500, 510 (3d Cir. 2003)

(reserving decision on question), or ethnicity. See Rico v.

Leftridge-Byrd, 340 F.3d 178, 182-84 (3d Cir. 2003).

42

O’Brien v. Dubois, 145 F.3d 16, 24-25 (1st Cir. 1998)) (emphasis

added), glossed the “contrary to” language as entitling a petitioner

to relief only if the petitioner “shows that ‘Supreme Court

precedent requires an outcome contrary to that reached by the

relevant state court.’”

Accordingly, both the terms of the habeas statute and

common sense dictate that Bronshtein cannot obtain relief on his

Batson claim unless application of a correct interpretation of that

decision leads to the conclusion that his rights were violated.

Applying plenary review, we agree with the District Court

that Bronshtein failed to make out a prima facie case. First, it is 10

relevant that Bronshtein’s claim is based on a single strike. We do

not hold that a prima facie case always requires more than one

contested strike, but the absence of a pattern of strikes is a factor

to be considered. In this connection, it is relevant (though not, as

the state supreme court held, dispositive) that the record does not

reveal whether the prosecutor passed up the opportunity to strike

other prospective jurors who were Jewish or who had ancestors

who once lived in Russia. See Simmons v. Beyer, 44 F.3d 1160,

1167 (3d Cir. 1995) (pattern of strikes and number of racial group

members in panel relevant); United States v. Clemons, 843 F.2d

741, 747-48 (3d Cir. 1988) (same).

Second, the nature of the crime did not provide a reason for

heightened suspicion about the prosecution’s reason for striking

Ms. Eidelson. See Simmons v. Beyer, 44 F.3d at 1167 (nature of

crime and race of accused and victim relevant); Clemons, 843 F.2d

at 748 (same). There was no suggestion that religion or ethnicity

played any role in the murder, and the accused and the victim

shared the same religion and ethnic background.
Bronshtein contends that the strike of Ms. Eidelson was 11

suspicious because, immediately after the trial judge ruled that

Batson does not prohibit peremptory challenges based on religion,

the prosecutor expressed an interest in asking about the religion of

a prospective juror “with a Jewish-sounding last name.”

Bronshtein’s Br. at 84-86. These circumstances are relevant, but

particularly in light of the reason volunteered by the prosecutor,

i.e., Ms. Eidelson’s attendance at Friends Central High School, we

are not persuaded that a prima facie case was established.

Bronshtein also contends that the following facts support a

prima facie case: (1) the Commonwealth exercised a peremptory

strike against a non-Jewish prospective juror who had lived for

some time in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood and (2) the

Commonwealth did not strike other venirepersons who shared

some of Ms. Eidelson’s characteristics, e.g., her marital and

employment status, educational background, and lack of military

service. See Bronshtein’s Br. at 86-88. These factors provide

slight support at best for Bronshtein’s position.

43

Third, the prosecutor’s questions and statements during voir

dire did not suggest that Ms. Eidelson was peremptorily challenged

because of her religion or ethnicity. See Simmons v. Beyer, 44

F.3d at 1167 (prosecutor’s questions relevant); Clemons, 843 F.2d

at 748 (same). It was defense counsel who first asked a juror

whether she was Jewish. The prosecutor expressed an interest in

whether Ms. Eidelson was a Quaker, not whether she was Jewish,

and his only question to her concerned her ability to vote for the

death penalty. We agree with the District Court that these facts are

insufficient to make out a prima facie case, and we therefore reject

Bronshtein’s Batson claim on this ground.11

VI.

We now consider two issues relating to the trial court’s

evidentiary rulings. First, Bronshtein argues that the trial court

violated his federal constitutional rights to a fair trial, to present a

defense, to due process, and to confrontation by excluding

proposed testimony by private investigator Alan Hart. Second,
See Appellant’s Br. at 14-20, 27-29, 32-37, 12

Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 88 Capital Appeal Docket, Pa. Sup.

Ct., Eastern District.

44

Bronshtein contends that the trial court violated his right to due

process by admitting his confession to the Slobotkin murder for the

limited purpose of showing the identity of the person who shot and

killed Gutman. 

A.

Before reaching the merits of these claims, we must

consider whether review is precluded by non-exhaustion or

procedural default. Without an express waiver by the state, a

federal court is allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) to grant

a state prisoner’s habeas petition only if the petitioner has

exhausted all available state remedies. In order to satisfy the

exhaustion requirement, a federal habeas claim must have been

“fairly presented” to the state courts. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.

270, 275 (1971). This means that a petitioner must “present a

federal claim’s factual and legal substance to the state courts in a

manner that puts them on notice that a federal claim is being

asserted.” McCandless v. Vaughn, 172 F.3d 255, 261 (3d Cir.

1999). “It is not enough that all the facts necessary to support the

federal claim were before the state courts,” Anderson v. Harless,

459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982), and “mere similarity of claims is insufficient

to exhaust.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 366 (1995).

In this case, our review of the state court record reveals that

the arguments that Bronshtein made with respect to these issues

were based entirely on state, rather than federal, law. As a result, 12

these claims were not properly exhausted. See Keller v. Larkins,

251 F.3d 408, 413-15 (3d Cir. 2001).

Bronshtein contends, however, that these claims “were

automatically exhausted on direct appeal by virtue of the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s mandatory appellate review in

capital cases.” Reply And Mem. Of Law In Support Of Pet. For

Writ Of Habeas Corpus at 11. Under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §
45

9711(h)(3)(i), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is required to

review the record in capital cases to determine whether “the

sentence of death was the product of passion, prejudice or any

other arbitrary factor[.]” Such review, Bronshtein asserts,

“satisfies the exhaustion requirement for all record-based claims of

constitutional error.” Reply And Mem. Of Law In Support Of Pet.

For Writ Of Habeas Corpus at 15. The District Court agreed,

stating that “[e]ven when a petitioner fails to raise a particular

constitutional issue, the mandatory review of capital convictions

and sentencings required in Pennsylvania is sufficient to exhaust

fundamental constitutional claims of the kind raised here by

Bronshtein.” App. I at 22 n.19.

We must disagree with this analysis. First, neither 42 Pa.

Cons. Stat. § 9711(h)(3)(i) nor any other Pennsylvania statute states

that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected to try to identify

and then assess every “record-based” federal constitutional

argument that might possibly be made on behalf a capital

defendant. Instead, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9711(h)(3)(i) imposes a

much more limited, albeit important, obligation, i.e., to make sure

that no death sentence is “the product of passion, prejudice or any

other arbitrary factor.”

Second, we see no evidence that the Pennsylvania Supreme

Court believes that it is required to engage in, or that it in fact

engages in, the sort of boundless inquiry that Bronshtein thinks is

required. See Commonwealth v. Paolello, 665 A.2d 439, 454 n.12

(Pa. 1995) (“[W]e decline counsel’s invitation to scour the record

for additional errors caused by counsel and sua sponte raise said

issues; the request is inappropriate and nonsensical in that such

advocacy would be beyond the scope of our appellate review.”)

The state supreme court’s opinion on direct appeal in this case is

illustrative. The state supreme court did not address any federal

constitutional issue that Bronshtein did not raise; nor did the state

supreme court address the question whether Bronshtein’s state-law

arguments would have merit if recast in federal constitutional

terms. It seems fanciful to suggest that, in every capital appeal, the

state supreme court actually considers and rejects a host of federal

constitutional claims without receiving briefing or argument on

those claims from counsel and without even mentioning in the
46

opinion of the court that the claims were entertained.

Third, Bronshtein’s argument is inconsistent with

Pennsylvania’s scheme of post-conviction review. Under the

PCRA, a petitioner may not obtain relief on a claim that was

“previously litigated,” 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9543(a)(3), and a

claim is viewed as having been “previously litigated” if “the

highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had

review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue.” 42

Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9544. Thus, if a Pennsylvania Supreme

Court decision affirming a capital conviction and sentence on

direct review is deemed to signify that the Court considered and

rejected every possible federal constitutional argument that could

be made based on the record, it would follow that no such claims

could ever be asserted under the PCRA. See Holland v. Horn, 150

F. Supp. 2d 706, 720-21 (E.D. Pa. 2001); Banks v. Horn, 49 F.

Supp. 2d 400, 406-07 (M.D. Pa. 1999). We are convinced that the

Pennsylvania Legislature did not intend such a result.

Fourth, Bronshtein’s argument would frustrate important

aspects of the federal habeas scheme. Under the federal habeas

statute, an applicant for federal habeas relief must show that “the

applicant has exhausted” all available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). In addition, a state is not

“deemed to have waived the exhaustion requirement” unless it

“expressly” does so, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3), and a federal habeas

court’s scope of review varies greatly depending on whether a

particular claim was or was not “adjudicated on the merits” in the

state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under Bronshtein’s

argument, however, the fiction that the state supreme court on

direct review automatically considers all possible “record-based”

arguments (and tacitly rejects all those that it does not expressly

endorse) essentially does away with these aspects of the federal

habeas scheme. The exhaustion requirement is rendered

meaningless since all possible claims are deemed to be exhausted

on direct review. Moreover, because an affirmance on direct

review is deemed to constitute an adjudication on the merits of all

possible record-based claims, it would seem to follow that all such

claims are subject to the narrow scope of federal habeas review set

out in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) regardless of whether the state supreme
47

court in fact ever considered those claims.

For these reasons, we agree with the courts of appeals that

have rejected arguments similar to Bronshtein’s. See, e.g., Beaty

v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 987 (9 Cir. 2002); Smith v. Moore, 137 th

F.3d 808, 821 (4 Cir. 1998); Nave v. Delo, 62 F.3d 1024, 1039 th

(8 Cir. 1995); Julius v. Johnson, 840 F.2d 1533, 1546 (11 Cir.

th th

1988). We have considered the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Beam

v. Paskett, 3 F.3d 1301, 1305-07 (9 Cir. 1993), but that decision th

does not persuade us to accept Bronshtein’s argument here.

In Beam, the claim at issue concerned the constitutionality

of an aggravating factor set out in the Idaho capital sentencing

statute. After first concluding that the habeas petitioner had fairly

presented his federal claim to the Idaho Supreme Court, the Beam

panel stated that the claim would not be procedurally defaulted

even if the petitioner had not raised it in the state supreme court.

The Beam panel noted that the Idaho Supreme Court was required

by statute to review the entire record in a capital case to make sure

that the death sentence was not the result of an “arbitrary factor.”

Id. at 1306. The panel then predicted that the Idaho Supreme Court

would interpret the state statute to mean that “affirmance of a

capital sentence constitutes an implicit rejection of all specific

claims falling within the subject of its mandatory review authority

and that any claim covered by the mandatory review statute must

be deemed resolved against the defendant even if he did not raise

that claim before the court and even if the court failed to address it

in its opinion.” Id. at 1306. Reasoning that reliance on the

sentencing factor at issue “would clearly constitute reliance on an

arbitrary factor,” the Beam panel concluded that this claim fell

within the specific terms of the Idaho Supreme Court’s mandatory

review authority and that therefore the state supreme court must

have considered and rejected the claim. Id. at 1307.

Beam is distinguishable from the present case on several

grounds. First, as noted, the petitioner there was held to have fairly

presented his claim to the state supreme court. Second, the relevant

discussion in Beam was based on a prediction about how the Idaho

Supreme Court would interpret its mandatory review authority, and

we do not predict that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would
48

interpret its mandatory review authority in a similar fashion. Third,

the relevant discussion in Beam was also predicated on the Court’s

view that the particular claim at issue, the constitutionality of a

capital sentencing factor, fell within the list of specific questions

that the Idaho Supreme Court was obligated to consider on direct

review. The pertinent claims here are different, and even if we

were bound by Beam – and of course we are not – it would not

follow that the particular claims in question here fall within the

scope of the Pennsylvania mandatory review provision. However,

to the extent that Beam’s reasoning differs from our analysis of

Bronshtein’s argument here, we find Beam unpersuasive. We thus

hold that the claims under discussion were not properly exhausted.

Although Bronshtein has never properly exhausted the

claims at issue, he is now “clearly foreclosed” from doing so by the

PCRA time limit, see 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9545(b), and these

claims are therefore procedurally defaulted. See Whitney, 280 F.3d

at 250-52. As a result, we may not grant relief on those claims

unless Bronshtein “makes the standard showing of cause and

prejudice or establishes a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Id.

at 253 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

We would permit Bronshtein to attempt on remand to

establish a reason to excuse his procedural default, but we find it

unnecessary to do so because it is apparent that the claims in

question lack merit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2), we may reject

claims on the merits even though they were not properly exhausted,

and we take that approach here. We will discuss in turn the two

evidentiary rulings that Bronshtein contests.

B.

1. Hart’s testimony. In his proffer of Hart’s testimony at an

in camera hearing before the trial judge, defense counsel stated that

Hart would testify that he had been hired by the New Jersey

Jewelers’ Association to conduct an investigation into a “scam”

that Karlitsky was suspected of carrying out. App. V at 1376-77.

According to the proffer, Hart would have testified that jewelry

that had been reported as stolen from Karlitsky’s store had “ended

up” at a downtown Philadelphia store owned by Karlitsky’s cousin.
49

Id. In addition, it was proffered that Hart would have testified that,

“contrary to . . . the Commonwealth’s testimony,” the Philadelphia

Police Department was involved in the investigation of this matter.

Id. Defense counsel asserted that Hart’s testimony would support

the theory that Karlitsky gave some of the jewelry from a scam at

the Leo Mall to Gutman to sell at his store and that a dispute

between them motivated Karlitsky to kill Gutman. See id. at 1341-

42.

Defense counsel acknowledged, however, that Karlitsky was

never charged or arrested in connection with the Leo Mall robbery

“because they couldn’t get enough evidence to arrest him.” Id. at

1377. Furthermore, defense counsel conceded that much of Hart’s

proffered testimony was hearsay and that the only proper testimony

that Hart could have given was that he was “working with the

Philadelphia Police in an investigation of Karlitsky.” Id. at 1377-

80. See also Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 691 A.2d at 917 n. 18.

The trial court excluded this testimony on the ground that evidence

about the Leo Mall robbery was “entirely collateral to the

proceedings,” and the state supreme court held that this ruling was

not an abuse of discretion because Bronshtein “failed to offer any

evidence that there was any logical connection between the

Slobotkin and Gutman murders and this dissimilar case.”

Bronshtein, 691 A.2d at 917.

“A defendant’s right to present relevant evidence is not

unlimited, but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions.” United

States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998). Here, the trial court

apparently applied a familiar evidence rule allowing the exclusion

of evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of

confusion of the issues or needless presentation of cumulative

evidence. See Morrison v. Commonwealth, Dept. Of Pub. Welfare,

646 A.2d 565 (Pa. 1994); Commonwealth v. Boyle, 447 A.2d 250

(Pa. 1982); Pa. Rule of Evid. 403 (effective 1998). The trial

court’s ruling plainly did not rise to the level of a federal

constitutional violation.

To begin, Hart’s proffered testimony would have been

largely cumulative since evidence about the Leo Mall robbery had

already been admitted. Montgomery County Detective Donald H.
It appears that Hart’s testimony would have supplemented 13

Rohner’s in only one respect. While Rohner testified that Karlitsky

was a suspect in the Leo Mall robbery, he stated that he did not

receive any information that the Philadelphia police considered him

a suspect, and Hart would have testified that the Philadelphia

police did suspect Karlitsky. This additional feature of Hart’s

proffered testimony is far too slight to convince us that the trial

court’s ruling violated Bronshtein’s federal constitutional rights.

50

Rohner had testified that, according to an unnamed source (who,

unbeknownst to the jury, was Bronshtein himself), Karlitsky was

a suspect in the alleged robbery of his own store. Indeed, in an

important respect, Rohner’s testimony was actually more helpful

to the defense than Hart’s would have been. Although Hart could

not have given competent testimony supporting the defense theory

that some of the jewelry from the Leo Mall robbery had found its

way to Gutman’s store, Rohner testified that, according to his

source, jewelry from the Leo Mall robbery had “ended up

somewhere else, at least one or more other places[.]” App. IV at

898.13

Moreover, even if Hart’s testimony had not been largely

cumulative, it would have had little probative value. At best,

Hart’s testimony suggested that Karlitsky might have staged the

robbery of his own store. This fact alone sheds no light on the

identity of Gutman’s killer. Even if Hart’s testimony is viewed in

conjunction with Detective Rohner’s statement that some of the

jewelry from the Leo Mall store “ended up” in other places, the

evidence does little to show that one of those places was Gutman’s

store, much less that a dispute over this jewelry led Karlitsky to kill

Gutman. This limited probative value must be weighed against the

likely danger that the evidence would sidetrack the proceedings and

confuse the jury. By admitting Hart’s testimony, the court risked

submerging the defendant’s trial in collateral litigation over an

unsolved and (at most) tangentially related crime committed by

someone other than the accused. For these reasons, the trial

judge’s decision to exclude Hart’s proffered testimony did not

violate Bronshtein’s federal constitutional rights.
51

2. Confession to Slobotkin murder. As previously noted,

Bronshtein confessed to the Philadelphia police that he had killed

Slobotkin, but when Bronshtein was questioned by the

Montgomery County police about the Gutman murder he told them

that Slobotkin and Gutman had been killed by the same man,

namely, “Mr. X,” whom Bronshtein later identified as Karlitsky.

Bronshtein also said that he was afraid of Mr. X and that he had

previously confessed to the Slobotkin murder only because he

would have “walked out of [the police station] a dead man” if he

had not confessed. App. IV at 965-66.

The trial judge admitted evidence of Bronshtein’s

confession to the Slobotkin murder but instructed the jury that it

was permitted to consider this evidence solely in relation to

Bronshtein’s statement that the person who killed Slobotkin also

killed Gutman. When the evidence was admitted, the trial court

told the jury:

This evidence [Bronshtein’s confession that he killed

Slobotkin] is not to be considered by you to the

extent that one might conclude, well, if he did do this

other crime for which we’re not trying, then, he’s a

bad person, and that means he probably did this. No,

it can’t be used for that purpose. It comes in for a

very limited and specific purpose, which is to say

that if you believe that he made this statement, and if

you believe that it was true, and if you believe that

he made the other statement that has been entered

into evidence [that the same person who killed

Slobotkin also killed Gutman], and if you believe

that is true, then, all of that may be considered by

you as evidence as to the identity of the person who

did, in fact, kill Mr. Gutman, the decedent who is the

subject of this case. But it is for that specific and

limited purpose only that you are being permitted to

hear this.

Id. at 1090-91. In its final charge, the trial court gave a similar
The trial judge stated: 14

[Y]ou’ve heard evidence tending to prove that the

defendant was guilty of an offense for which he is

not on trial, and I am speaking again of the testimony

to the effect that the defendant made a statement to

Detective Augustine that he had killed a jeweler

named Slobotkin. This evidence, as I instructed you

at the time you first heard it, was before you for a

limited purpose, that is, for the purpose of tending to

show the identity of the killer in this, the Gutman

case, and then only because the Commonwealth has

put before you another statement allegedly from the

defendant that the killer of Slobotkin and the killer

of Gutman were one and the same man. In other

words, you were allowed to hear about the statement

allegedly attributed to the defendant on a case

unrelated to this one only because if coupled with the

other statement attributed to him and if believed by

you, then, it goes to the question of the identity of

the killer of Mr. Gutman, which is the issue in this

case.

 Now, this evidence must not be considered by

you in any way other than for the purpose I just

stated. You must not regard this evidence, that is,

the statement about killing Slobotkin, as showing

that the defendant is a person of bad character or

criminal tendencies from which you might be

inclined to infer his guilt. If you find the defendant

guilty, it must be because you are convinced by the

evidence that he committed the crime in this case,

the one charged, not because you believe he’s

wicked or has committed other offenses in other

places at other times.

App. V, Pt. 2 at 1676-77.

52

warning.14

Admission of “other crimes” evidence provides a ground for
In this context, “relevant” means sufficient to support a 15

finding that the other crime or wrong occurred and that the

defendant was the actor. Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S.

681, 689 (1988).

53

federal habeas relief only if “the evidence’s probative value is so

conspicuously outweighed by its inflammatory content, so as to

violate a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.” Lesko v.

Owens, 881 F.2d 44, 52 (3d Cir. 1989). That is plainly not the case

here.

Other crimes evidence is routinely admitted when it is

relevant to show “identity.” See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); Pa. 15

R. Evid. 404(b)(2). Here, Bronshtein’s confession to the

Philadelphia police that he killed Slobotkin was relevant to show

the identity of Gutman’s killer because Bronshtein later informed

the Montgomery County police that Slobotkin’s killer also

murdered Gutman. Bronshtein’s confession to the Slobotkin

murder was not rendered irrelevant by his subsequent contradictory

statement to the Montgomery County police that Karlitsky killed

Slobotkin, as well as Gutman. Relevant evidence does not become

irrelevant just because contradictory evidence exists. Conflicting

evidence presents a question of credibility for the trier of fact, not

a question of relevance for the court, and of course a trier of fact is

under no obligation to accept or reject a party’s admissions in toto.

On the contrary, a trier of fact may believe some of the party’s

admissions and disbelieve others. Here, Bronshtein’s statement

that he killed Slobotkin and his statement to the Montgomery

County police that Karlitsky was the killer were both relevant to

show the identity of Gutman’s murderer, and it was proper for the

trial judge to admit both statements.

VII.

Bronshtein’s final argument concerns comments made by

the prosecutor in his guilt phase summation. In short, the

prosecutor argued that, although Bronshtein’s attorney had

suggested that Karlitsky was a major organized crime figure and

that Karlitsky had killed Gutman, the defense had not offered any
The prosecutor stated: 16

And I suggest to you they would

search high and low, heaven and hell,

to try and get somebody in this

courtroom, expert or otherwise, that

can put Karlitsky somehow related to

some scam – 

. . . .

They would be more than happy to

find somebody that would come in

here and link [Karlitsky] to some

scam, link him to some involvement

of the mob.

Ask their own so-called expert, the

man they’re putting forth as the

expert, “Have you ever heard of

Karlitsky?”

. . . . 

Did you hear that question even posed

to their expert? Did you hear he heard

him [Karlitskly] involved in anything?

What is this, what he has labeled,

Nicky Scarfo-like head? What’s his

criminal background? No robberies,

like he said. No murders, like he said.

Big Nicky Scarfo, Daddy Warbucks

Scarfo, headed this Russian Mafia,

Russian Mob, has a shoplifting arrest

from 1990. That’s where they got his

fingerprints from, a shoplifting arrest.

No other criminal history, nothing

with robberies, nothing with

murders[.] . . . That’s a smoke screen,

54

significant evidence to support this theory. According to the

prosecutor, even the Leo Mall evidence was weak.16
ladies and gentlemen, you can

conclude based on the evidence that’s

been presented to you.

That’s something where they’re trying

to take your focus off the ball, trying

to get your attention deflected off of

what you can conclude based on the

law and the evidence is the real truth

in this case.

They want you to believe a Karlitsky.

They have to have you believe a

Karlitsky if their defense is going to

apply, if their defense is going to

work.

But nobody has heard of him.

Organized crime hasn’t heard of him.

He’s not linked to any scams, not

linked to any organized crime – 

. . . .

Nothing. No links whatsoever that

have been brought forward in this case

no matter how many times he wants to

object, but that’s still the way it is.

And that’s still the facts in this case.

The only thing they even alluded to –

and I suggest to you, they didn’t even

give you the whole picture – was they

alluded to some Leo Mall store he had

as a jeweler. He starts talking about

this consignment stuff.

You haven’t heard one word about any

consignment from Leo Mall. You

haven’t heard word one about his

55
involvement in any scam from

Philadelphia Police involved in the

Leo Mall, not one iota about that; but

they bring it forth and they argue it to

you when they come here in closing to

try and say, “Well, we’ll infer he was

involved in a scam here; so we’ll take

that and infer through our expert that

Russian Jews are involved in scams

and a lot of organized crime. From

that, they do scams, and so we’ll link

him from maybe being in a scam, from

being a Russian Jew to maybe

working in scams they do. Wah-la.

He’s organized crime.”

Think of the step that takes. Think of

the leaps they take when they try and

take that to you and whether it’s

founded in any of the evidence that

has been presented to you. Think of

that, because that’s the linchpin of

their defense; because if this fear is

dispelled, if this Karlitsky does not

exist in terms of doing anything in this

case, then, their defense goes down

the tubes.

App. V, Pt. 2 at 1585-88.

56

Bronshtein claims that the prosecutor’s statements violated

his due process rights. He contends that the comments on the

defense’s failure to present evidence in support of the defense

theory were improper because the prosecutor knew that, but for the

trial court’s preclusion of Hart’s testimony, the defense would have

presented “evidence that Karlitsky had previously committed

jewelry robberies and scams in support of the defense theory that

Karlitsky . . . held the intent, motive and means for committing the

instant offenses.” Bronshtein’s Br. at 104.
57

Improper remarks by a prosecutor may “so infect[] the trial

with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due

process.” Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974).

Due process is violated where the misconduct “constitutes a

‘failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very

concept of justice.’” Id. at 642. No such violation occurred here.

In discussing the prosecutor’s comments, the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court accurately noted that the defense had not proffered

any evidence that Karlitsky had staged the robbery of his own

store, only evidence that the police suspected him of involvement.

See Bronshtein, 691 A.2d at 920. Moreover, there was no evidence

linking Karlitsky to “the Russian ‘mafia.’” Id. The Pennsylvania

Supreme Court observed:

[A] review of the transcript of an in camera

discussion reveals that, although appellant’s expert

had personally investigated the possibility of

Karlitsky’s involvement in an alleged scam at the

Leo Mall jewelry store, there had been no evidence

to link Karlitsky to any such scam or to link any

jewelry scam to the Gutman murder . . . .

Trial counsel dedicated more than half of his

sixty page closing argument to the theory that

Karlitsky had committed the murder as part of a

jewelry store scam involving the Russian “mafia,”

and that appellant had confessed to the Slobotkin

murder out of fear of Karlitsky. Given that there was

no evidence, either at trial or in the defense proffer

on the substance of the excluded testimony, of

Karlitsky’s involvement in an alleged scam at the

store or his connection to the Russian “mafia,” it was

not improper for the prosecution to ask the jury to

draw an inference that no such evidence existed.

Id.

We agree with the state supreme court’s analysis of this

issue and hold that the summation did not violate Bronshtein’s
58

federal constitutional rights.

VIII.

For the reasons set out above, we reverse the order of the

District Court in part and affirm in part, and we remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.