T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an o rde r an d jud g m en t m ayb e c it ed u n d er the term s an d co n d it ion s o f 1 0 th C ir
. R
. 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O ctob er12,2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C I R C U I T

T Y R ONE S M I T H ,

D efe ndant
- A ppel l ant , N o. 05- 2027 v. ( D
. N ew M exi co) D O N A L D D O R SE Y , W ar den,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. ( D . C . No
. CI V - 0 4
- 2 6 1
- M C A / L F G )

ORDE R AND J UDGM E N T *
B efor e HENR Y , S E Y M O U R , and T Y M KOVI C H , C i rcui tJudg es.

T yr one Sm i th, a N ew M exi co s t at e pr i s oners ervi ng a l i fe s ent ence appea l s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s pet i t i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4
. M r . S m i th w a s c o n v i c t e d o ffi r s t - d e g r e e m u r d e r , c o n s p i r a c y, and tw o count s of t amper i ng w i th evi dence
. T he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the fin d ing s an d rec o m m en d ati o n s o f th e m ag istrate jud g e a n d d en ied M r.W e not e thatM r . Sm i th s ought , and w as gr ant ed, a C O A on a B r ady 1 c laim a n d se v e ra l C o n fro n tatio n C lau se c laim s th a t h e h a s c h o se n n o t to rai se befo re us.

-2- S m ith ’s ha b ea s p eti ti o n an d also d en ied M r. S m ith ’s req u est fo r a C erti fica te ofA p p ea labili ty(“C O A ”). A p an el ofthis co u rtg ran ted M r. Sm i th r eques tfora C O A pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 2253 on s ever al
con t enti on s, i ncludi ng fou r i neffect i ve assi st ance c l ai m s, tw o d ue p rocess cl ai m s , a C onfr ont at i on C l aus e vi ol at i on, and cumul at i ve err or . For 1
s ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons s etfor th bythe magi s tr at e j udge, w e deny M r . Sm i th’ s habea s pet i t i on. I
. BA C K G R OUND A . P roce dural post ure A fter a n in e -d a yju rytrial h e ld in N e w M e x ico sta te c o u rt in Sept ember1995, the j ur yconvi ct ed M r . Sm i th of fi r s t - degr ee mur derof Je ro l Y o u n g e r, co n sp ira c y , an d tw o c o u n ts o ftam p e rin g w ith e v id e n c e , in
v io la tio n o fN .M . S ta t. A n n . § 3 0 -2 -1 (A )( 1 ) ( 1 9 9 4 ), i d. § 30- 28- 2( B ) ( 1) (1 9 7 9 ), i d. § 3 0 -2 2 -5 (1 9 6 3 ). T h e sta te tria l co u rt se n ten c e d M r. S m ith to l i fe pl us t w el ve y ear s . T he N ew M exi co Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed hi s di r ect appea l ; the s t at e di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed M r . Sm i th’ s pos t convi ct i on pet i t i on forhabea s corpus , and the N ew M exi co Supr eme C our tand the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdeni ed hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof ce r t i or ar i
. M r . Sm i th has- 3-

exh aust ed eac h o f his cl ai m s befo re the st at e cou rt s. B . S tate m en t of F a cts T he N ew M exi co Supr eme C our tpr ovi ded the fol l ow i ng fac tual backgr ound w hen i tr ej ect ed the di r ectappea l s of M r . Sm i th and hi s codefe ndantM r . B r ow n:

O n S e p te m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 9 2 , the b o d yo fJe ro l Y o u n g e r, an A ir F o rc e se rg e a n t sta ti o n e d a t K irtlan d A ir F o rc e b a se , w a s fo u n d in an i r r i gat i on di t ch i n s outh A l buquer que. H e ha d b een str angl ed a n d b e a ten to d e a th . Y o u n g e r a lleg e d lyw a s a d ru g d e a ler in A l buquer que up unt i l the t i m e of hi s death. D e n ise S p ik e s a n d F ra n k L u c e ro w e re th e tw o m a in pr os ecut i on w i tnes s es . T he st or i es theyt ol d pr ovi ded the theoryof the St at e' s cas e. Spi kes t es t i fi ed as fol l ow s . She and Y oungerhad been mar r i ed atone t i m e and ha d a s on t ogeth er. Spi kes t es t i fi ed thatY oungerdi s l i ked the i nt i m at e r el at i ons hi p that had deve l oped betw een S pikes and D efen dan tS m i th. A ccor d ing to Sp i kes, D e fe n d a n t S m ith a n d S p ik e s d e c id e d to r e s o lv e th e re latio n sh ip w i th Y oungerbygoi ng t o t al k t o hi m . Spi kes cal l ed Y oungerfr om a p ayp h o n e in A lbu q u erq u e a n d ask ed h im to co m e a n d g et he r. T h e tw o d ro v e to L u c e ro ’s h o u s e , a s m a ll, fre e -sta n d in g ro o m in A lbu q u erq u e's S o u th V all ey , w h ere D efen d an ts an d L u ce ro w ere w ai t i ng. W hen Spi kes knocked on the door , Y oungerw as gr ab bed and t aken i nto the h ous e, and Spi kes r emai ned out s i de. She t es t i fi ed s he hea r d Y oungers cr eam and s he r an t o a nea rbypay p h o n e . D e fe n d a n t S m ith , h o w e v e r, ca m e to g e t h e r, ap p a re n tly befor e s he w as abl e t o phone forhel p. W hen s he arr i ved bac k at L ucer o' s hous e, Y oungerw as gone, as w as hi s car . D efe ndant Sm i th w enti nt o t he hous e fora few m i nut es , came out , and he a nd Spi kes w entt o h i s m ot her ’ s hom e. Sever al w eeks l at er , Spi kes a sk e d D e fe n d a n t S m ith ifh e h a d k ill e d Y o u n g e r a n d h e d e n ied it. L ucer o, w ho w as i n the r oom atthe t i m e of the ki l l i ng, t est i fi ed as fo l l ow s. H e sa id that he w as athis gir l fri end ' s hou se w h e n D e fe n d a n t S m ith c a m e to th e d o o r a n d sa id th a t h e n e e d e d to g o t o Lu c e r o ' s h o u s e b e c a u s e s o m e o n e was g o i n g t o p i c k u p a tele v isio n . L u c e ro tes tifie d th a t h e g o t in to a B laz e r b e lo n g in g to D efen d an t Sm ith ’s m o ther, i n w h ic h S p ikes an d D efen d an ts w ere-4-

s eat ed. T heydr ove t o L ucer o' s hous e and ent er ed. L ucer o t es t i fi ed th a tD efen dan tS m i th an d S pikes l eft , and D efen dan tS m ith re tu rn e d a lo n e w ith a tele v isio n , w h ich h e p lac e d in th e c lo se t. L ucer o s t at ed t hat he hear d a car dr i ve up, and hear d tw o voi ces ; he r e c o g n i z e d o n e a s th e v o i c e o f S p i k e s , a n d th e o th e r a s m a l e . T h e m an ent er ed, and D efe ndant Sm i th t ol d the man t hatthe t el evi s i on w as i n t he cl os et . W hen he w ent t o the cl os et , D efe ndant s att acke d th e m a n w ith h a m m e rs. L u c e ro tes tifie d th a t S p ik e s w a s w a lk in g in at th e ti m e, bu t th at th e d o o r m u s t h a v e clos ed o n h er. L u ce ro tes tifie d th a t D e fe n d a n t B ro w n re triev e d a g u n fro m a b a g a n d h e ld it o n th e m a n w h il e D e fe n d a n t S m ith tied h im . D e fe n d a n t S m ith then t ol d L ucer o t o put on gl oves , t ake the m an' s car key s , an d g et r i d o fth e c a r . Lu c e r o d i d s o . Aft e rwar d s , Defe n d a n tSmi th found L ucer o and br oughthi m back t o hi s hous e. T he m an w as s t i l l on the fl ooratL ucer o’ s hom e. T he thr ee men l oaded the bodyi nt o a truck and dumped hi s bodyi n a di t ch. Fol l ow i ng t he murde r , L ucer o bec am e veryanxi ous ar ound p o l i ce off i c e r s . A c c o r d i n g t o Luc e r o ’ s c o u s i n , D enis e P u rce ll -A b ey ta, an d h er ro o m m ate, M ati lda G o n za les, L u ce ro admi t t ed t o ki l l i ng Y oungerbeca us e he ow ed Y oungerm oneyfor drugs . Shor t l yaft ert hi s , pol i ce at t empt ed t o s ear ch Lucer o' s hom e, b u t i t had b ee n b u rne d d o w n . In th e re m ains o f th e h o u se, ho w ev er, the pol i ce found a ham m er head and handl e, pl as t i c bags, ductt ape, a n d c o r d s s i m i l a r t o th o s e u s e d t o t i e u p Yo u n g e r . Ar o u n d th e t i m e of the s ear ch , b o th L ucer o and D efe ndantSm i th l eftthe s t at e and travel ed to San D i ego t o v i si tS pikes. I n San D i ego, L u cer o s t ay ed w i th hi s aunt , L i nda Sat om ba. W hen po l i ce l ocated S at om ba, she i nit i al l yden i ed k no w i ng his w h e re a b o u ts. L a ter , tho u g h , sh e to ld p o lice L u c e ro h a d r e late d to hera s t or ys i m i l art o hi s tr i al t es t i m ony . A ccor d ing t o Sat om ba, L ucer o neveradmi t t ed t o ki l l i ng Y ounger . S at om ba t es t i fi ed at tr i al r egar di ng L u ce ro' s s t at ement s . H ert es t i m onyw as admi t t ed undert he pr i orcons i s t ents t at ementrul e. L ucer o w as gi ven tr ans act i onal i m m uni tyand Spi k es w as gi ven us e i m m uni tyt o te s t i fyattr i al
. D efe ndant s w er e convi ct ed of fi rs tdeg ree deli berat e i ntent m urder, con spi racyt o co m m i tfi rs t d eg ree m u rde r, an d tw o co u n ts ofev iden ce tam p e ri n g . T h eyw ere sent enced t o li fe i m pri sonm ent pl us t w el ve y ears . Ne w Mex ic o v . B r o w n , 9 6 9 P
. 2 d 3 1 3 , 3 1 7 -18 (19 9 8 ).- 5- I I
. DI S C U S S I O N T hi s courtgr ant ed M r . Sm i th a C O A on ei ghti s s ues : I s s ues ( 1) thro u g h (4) inv o lve in effe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel fo r co u n sel’s fa il u re (1 ) to m o v e to e x c lu d e M r. L u c e ro ’s te stim o n yb e c a u se h is im m u n ity agr eementw as i m perm i s s i bl ycoer ci ve; ( 2) t o r eques ta l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on
re g a rd in g M r. L u c e ro ’s p rio r c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts to M s. S a to m b a ; (3 ) to presentevidence thatw ou l d h ave sho w n thatM s. S pikes’ m oti ve to l i e arose befo re s he m ade ce rt ai n p ri or consi st ent s t at em ents t o M s. Ji m enes an d M s. O ’ G r ady ; and ( 4) t o obj ectunderN M R A 11- 403 t o t es t i m onyconce rni ng M s. S p ikes ’ prior inc o n sist en t st atem en ts. T h e re m ainin g co n tention s are (5) M r. L ucero’s i m m un i tyagreem ent vi olat ed M r. S m i th’s due p rocess
r i ght s beca us e i tw as i m perm i s s i bl ycoer ci ve; ( 6) N ew M exi co’ s theoryof ad m issi b il ityreg ard ing M s. S atom b a’s o u t ofco u rtstat em en ts violated M r. S m ith ’s d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts; (7 ) M r. S m ith ’s C o n fro n tatio n C lau se rig h ts
w er e vi ol at ed vi a s t i pul at i on r egar di ng the t es t i m onyof K ar en Thom as ; and (8 ) c u m u la tiv e e rr o r v io la te d M r. S m ith ’s ri g h t to d u e p ro c e s s . T o s ucce ed on hi s § 2254 pet i t i on, M r . Sm i th m us tes t abl i s h thatthe N ew M exi co Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on: ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i o n that w as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ; or (2 ) re su lted in a d e c isio n th a t w a s b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n the- 6-

St at e courtpr ocee di ng. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ). “[ A ] d e ter m in a tio n o fa fa c tu a l issu e m a d e b ya S tate
c o u rt s h a ll b e p re s u m e d to b e c o rr e c t.” Id. § 2 2 5 4 (e )(1 ); Sm i th v. Mul l i n, 379 F. 3d 919, 924- 25 ( 10t h C i r . 2004)
. W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s l egal anal y s i s of the s t at e courtdeci s i on de novo. T he magi s tr at e j udge cons i der ed and r ej ect ed ea ch of thes e cl ai m s on the mer i t s . W e have cons i der ed the magi s tr at e j udge’ s thor ough and l engthy fi ndi ngs , the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der , the br i efs , and the ent i r e r ecor d on
a p p e a l. F o r su b sta n tiallyth e sa m e re a so n s a rticu late d b yth e m a g istra te j udge i n i t s w el l
- r eas oned fi ndi ngs and r ecomm ended di s pos i t i on, w e deny M r. S m i th’s pet i t i on for hab eas corpus. Fi r s t , the magi s tr at e j udge corr ect l ydet erm i ned thatnone of i s s ues ( 1) th ro u g h (4 ) m e t Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on ’ s defi ci entper form ance or p rejud ice p ron g s. 4 6 6 U
. S
. 6 6 8 , 6 8 8 (19 8 4 ). T h e N ew M ex ico d istri ct co u rt det erm i ned thatM r . L ucer o’ s t es t i m onyw as noti nher ent l yunr el i abl e and thathi s cr edi bi l i tyw as pr oper l yl eftt o the j ury . I tfound ther e w as no
r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythata mot i on t o excl ude the t es t i m onyw oul d have been s ucce s s ful
. W e agr ee w i th the magi s tr at e j udge thatthi s w as notan
u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o ffe d e r a l l a w . S ec o n d , as to the lim it ing instruction , the N ew M ex ico d istri ct co u rt det erm i ned s uch an i ns truct i on “w oul d have ha d l i t t l e val ue and w oul d not-7-

h a v e c h a n g e d t h e o u t c o m e o ft h e c a s e . ” A p l t ’ s A p p . v o l
. V , a t1 1 9 2
. We agr ee thatnei therpr ong of Str i cklandhas been metand thi s w as notan
u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o fc l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w . T h ird , as to M s. S p ik e s’ m o tiv e to lie, th e sta te c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t “[r ] eas onabl ycompet entatt or ney s w oul d have c oncl uded thatther e w as gr eat erpot ent i al fordamage i n pr es ent i ng thi s evi dence than i n us i ng exi s t i ng evi dence t o es t abl i s h w hen M s . Spi kes ’ m ot i ve t o l i e ar os e. ” Id. at 1196- 97 . T h e m a g istra te ju d g e d e ter m in e d th a t th e d e c isio n to c a ll a
w itn e ss is a trial ta c tic, a n d a g re e d th a t M s. Jim e n e s a n d M r. T o lb e rt w o u ld have made s t at ement s thatw er e pr ej udi ci al t o the defens e. W e a g re e w ith the m agis trat e j ud ge’s conclusi on s. Four th, as t o fai l ur e t o obj ectunderN M R A 11- 403, the N ew M exi co stat e c o u rt found thi s deci s i on t o be a t act i cal one, and conc l uded that“a
re a so n a b lyc o m p e ten t atto rn e yw o u ld h a v e d e c id e d n o t to o bjec t u n d e r R u le 403 t o t es t i m onyof Spi kes ’ pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ement s s i nce s uch obj ect i ons w oul d have be en overrul ed” a nd ther e i s no evi dence “thats uch
a n o bjec tio n w o u ld h a v e a ffe c ted th e o u tco m e o fth e trial.” A p lt’s A p p . v o l. V , a t 1 1 9 8
. T he magi s tr at e j udge s t at ed ther e w as “nothi ng unr eas onabl e” aboutthe s t at e habe as pr ocee di ng’ s out come and t hat“[t ] he t es t i m onyw as of m or e than mar gi nal r el evanc e. ” Id. v o l. III , at 80 5 (M ag istrate Ju d g e’s Fi ndi ngs and R ecomm ended D i s pos i t i on)
. “[Thi s ] courtcannots aythat- 8-

excl us i on of thi s t es t i m onyw oul d have made a di ffe r ence i n the out come of the tr i al
. . . . ” Id. at806. W e agr ee thatthe N ew M exi co court ’ s rul i ng w as
n o ta n u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o ffe d e r a l l a w . F ifth , as to th e c o e rc iv e n a tu re o fM r. L u c e ro ’s im m u n itya g re e m e n t,
w hi ch i ncl uded s ever al par agr aphs pr epar ed bythe governm entas t o w hat h is te stim o n yw o u ld b e , all p a rties a g re e th a t th is p a rticu lar a g re e m e n t is qui t e unus ual
. M r . L ucer o pr om i s ed t o t es t i fytruthful l y , and the N ew M ex ico S u p rem e C o u rt d eterm ined that the a g ree m en t did n o t coe rce M r. L ucer o i nt o doi ng ot herw i s e. T he magi s tr at e j udge found thatther e w as “nothi ng on the r ecor d that
w oul d t end t o s how L ucer o w as coer ced i nt o t es t i fy i ng as he di d. ” Id. at 7 9 9 . A lth o u g h b o th M r. S m ith ’s c o u n se l an d th e a tto rn e yfo r th e S tate found the agr eementt o be “unus ual , ” thi s acknow l edgment“does not
es t abl i s h thatthe agr eementw as coer ci ve. ” Id
. W e agr ee w i th the
m agi s tr at e j udge thatthe N ew M exi co Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on w as notan
u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o ffe d e ra l law n o r w a s it b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed. S ix th , as to w h e th e r th e a d m iss io n o fth e p rio r c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts fro m M s. S atom b a su p p o rt ing M r. L u ce ro’s v ersion o f e v en ts violated M r. Sm i th’ s due pr oces s r i ght s , the N ew M exi co Supr eme C our thel d the evi dence w as i m pr oper l yadmi t t ed as s ubs t ant i ve evi dence , butanyerr or- 9-

w as harm l es s beca us e the s t at ement s coul d come i n as r ehabi l i t at i ve evi dence
. T he magi s tr at e j udge det erm i ned that“[t ] her e w as s uffi ci ent l egal bas i s fort he [s t at e] s upr eme cour tt o rul e thatthe t es t i m onyw as pr operas r ehabi l i t at i on evi dence , aft erL ucer o’ s cr edi bi l i tyw as att acke d on
cr os s - exami nat i on. ” Id. at827. M or eover , “[a ] l though the evi dence w as admi t t ed att r i al as non- hear s ayunderR ul e 801, the pr os ecut i on di d not
u n d u lyem p h asize S atom b a’s testi m o n yin clo sing arg u m en t. . . . T h e C o u rt cannots ayt hatt he St at e ar gued t o the j urythatSat om ba’ s t es t i m ony
cons t i tut ed s ubs t ant i ve evi dence of Sm i th’ s gui l t . ” Id
. W e agr ee w i th the
m agi s tr at e j udge’ s concl us i on thatthe s t at e s upr eme cour t ’ s r eas oni ng w as notan unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of fe der al l aw , nordi d i tr enderthe tr i al fu n d a m e n ta lly u n fa ir
. S even th, M r. S m i th’s C on front at i on C l ause argum ent fai l s becau se M s. T ho m as w as a defen se w i tness, w ho w ou l d n ot be subj ectt o crossex am ination b yM r. S m ith
. W e a g ree w ith the N ew M ex ico S u p rem e C o u rt ’s
c o n c lu sio n th a t M r. S m ith
cann ot expect that [he] w ou l d b e able t o p res ent Th om as’ t es t i m onyi n t he form of a s t i pul at i on w i thoutthe St at e br i ngi ng outi n t he s t i pul at i on how [he] w oul d expec tT hom as t o t es t i fy on cr os s - exami nat i on. W e agr ee w i th the St at e’ s cont ent i on that D efe ndant [] acc ept ed par agr aphs ni ne and t en of the s t i pul at i on i n or dert o gai n t he fi r s tei ghtpar agr aphs of the s t i pul at i on. 969 P. 2d at323.- 10-

E i g h th a n d fi n a l l y, h a v i n g fo u n d n o e rr o ri n a n yo fth o s e ru l i n g s , we
m u st co n clud e tha t th ere w as n o cu m u lat ive e rror. I I I
. CO N C L U S I O N A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of M r . Sm i th’ s § 22 54 peti t i on for hab eas corpus. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H
. H en ry C i r cui tJ udge