## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1731 W I L L I A M J OH NS ON, P etitio ner-A pp ellee, v. G E RA RDO A CE VE DO, W ar den, H il l C orrectiona l C en ter, Res pond e nt

-Appe l l ant
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C5351

—H arry D . L einenw eber, Ju dge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 3, 2008

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 14, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd C UDAH Ya nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . Wi l l i am J o hnso n i s se r ving sentences agg re gat i ng 50 ye ar s’ i m pri sonm ent forar m ed ro bber y, ag gr avat ed batt er y, and u se ofa w eapon bya convi cted fel on. A j ury i n I l l i noi s co n vic te d hi m o fthes e off enses f ol l owing a t ri alatwh i ch one ofhi s co usi ns, plus tw o em p loy ees o fa M cDonal d’s re sta urant, te sti fi ed th athe e nt er ed th e r es ta ur an t wi tha sa w ed -o ffs ho tgun2 N o. 08

- 1731

an d r o bb ed th e ca shr eg i st er s, s ho otinga nd i nj ur i ngo ne ofthe em plo yee s in t h e proce ss. J ohnson tes ti fi ed at tr i al th at h e h ad b e e n bu yin g a u to su p p lies w h ile h is c ou sin r o b b e d the r e s t a ur a nt
. A fe de ra l d i st r i c tc o ur ti s s ue d a wr i t o f hab e a s c o r pu s u nd e r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 5 4 a ft e r c o nc l ud

i ng tha t the pro secuto r had vi ol ate d the r ule o fD oyl ev. O hio , 4 26 U. S
. 6 10 ( 19 76 ) , b y a sk i ngJ ohn son why he f ai l ed to r el ate thi s s tor y when i nter vi ew ed the day after th e r o bb er y . 5 44 F
. S upp. 2 d 6 83 ( N
. D
. Il l

. 2 00 8)
. The sta te conte nd s thatA nd erson v. C ha rles , 447 U
. S. 404 (1980), perm i ts the pr ose cutorto pursue thi s l i ne o fquesti oni ng, and that a ny er ro r i s har m l ess . A j u ris d i c t i o n al p ro b lem d ela ye d co n sid er at ion of th is appeal

. T h e d istr i ct c ourtente re d a j ud gm ent that r eads, i n ful l : “ I T I S HER EBY OR DER ED AND ADJ UD GED th at th e p et it i o n e r , W illiam Joh n so n ’s p et itio n for a W rit o fH abe a s Co r pu s i s c o nd i t i o na l l y g r a nt e d. ” T hi s s o un ds like a w ritw i l l i s s u e in th e fu tu re if so m e c on d itio n is s a t i s fi ed

— bu t w ha t con d iti on? Th e d istri ct j ud ge’s opi ni on s ay s that the st ate m ust r el eas e J ohnson unle ss he i s re tr i ed w i thi n 90 days. That i s n ot a “c ond i ti onal gr an t” of an yt h in g; it is a d ec isio n th at Joh n so n is enti tl ed to a w ri t that a l l ows the s tat e t o choos e be tw een re tr i aland re l eas e. But no s uch w ri t was i ssu ed

. A j ud gm ent ne eds to d o m or e than j ust s ay that som e pet i ti on o r m oti on has been gr anted; i t m ust pro vi de the re l i efto w h ich th e v ict or is en tit led . U n t i l t h at h ap p en s t h er e is n o fin al d ec isio n an d n ot h in g t o a p p ea l. E very j ud gm en t m us t be self- con tained and sp ecify th e re lief b ein g a w ar d ed . See , e.g., Rey t b l at tv. D e nt on , 81 2N o. 08

- 1731 3 F.2 d 10 42 (7t h C ir. 19 8 7 )
. A w ritof h ab ea s c or p u s is en f o r ce ab l e byc o nt empt, s o i t i s es pec i al l y i m po r ta nt that the c ourtse t o ut pre cise ly w h at i s r equi re d. Dist ri ct cour ts w oul d cause few erpro bl em s o f t hi s k i nd i fthey o be y ed F ed. R. Ci v. P
. 5 8(b) ( 2) , whi chs ay s th atthe j ud ge m ust per sonal l y r ev iew and approve any j ud gm ent o therthan one i m ple m enti ng a j ury’ s v er dicto r denyi ng al l r el i ef

. Thi s jud gm ent was notapprov ed by the j ud ge; i t i s si gned onl y b y a deputy cl er k ( and not re al l y “ si gned” ev en bythe cl er k; ther e is j ust a l i ne with “/ s/ ” f ol l owe d by a ty ped nam e)
. Rule 58 ( b) r equi re s re vi ew and approva l by a j ud ge because d eputy cl er ks c a nn o tr e a d j ud g e s ’ mi nd s a nd ma y no tu s e l e g a l l y a pp rop r iate l an gu age even i f th ey can disce rn a j ud ge’s obj ective. (Few d ep ut y clerks are law yers.) T his c o u rt putthe a ppea l i n s ta si s whi l e th e par ti es r etur ne d t o the dist ri c t c ou rtand obt ai ned a pro per fi nal j ud gm ent. Th a th a s b e e n do ne , s o the a pp e a l c a n pr o c e e d. J ohnson’ s co usi n, J am eelW hi te, te stifi ed that he dro ve wi th J o h n s o n t o a Mc Do n a l d ’ s r e s t a u r a n t, whi chth e t wo ente re d to or der a m eal

. ( W e hav e dra w n thi s info rm ati o n, a nd much o fwhatf o l l o ws, fr o m the op ini o n o fthe A p p ell ate C ou rt of I ll in o is. N o one con tests that cou rt’s nar r a t i o n o f wha t ha pp e ne d a t t r i a l

. ) Acc o r di ng to W hite, J ohn son un ex p ecte d ly p ulled out a saw ed -off sh o tgu n and b eg ana r o bb er y ; W hi te fl ed ac r o ss the st re et to a T ra k A u to st or e, w h er e Jo h n so n ev en tu ally j o i n e d hi m. T h e t wo p a i d a th i r d p a r t y t o g i v e th e m a rid e. W h ite w en t h o m e , an d Joh n so n w en t t o a m ot el. Tw o e mpl o y e e s o f the r e s t a ur a nt pi c k e d J o hn s o n o uto f a l i n e u p a s th e r o b b e r a n d i d e n t i fi e d h i m a tt r i a l

. An4 N o. 08

- 1731

em plo yee o fTra k Au to testi fi ed that J ohnson enter ed the sto re and waved a fi stful of crum ple d b i l l s. P olice f o und in J o hns o n’ s car, whi chha d b ee n l eft i n the r es ta ur a nt ’ s p a r k i ngl o t, s o me c r umpl ed cur r e nc y a nd a s a we doffshotg un ; a spe n t shell w as in the gun ’s cham ber. (T h e ro b b er h a d f ire d on e ro u n d ins id e t h e re st au ra n t.) A t o r n po r ti o n o f a $2 0 bi l l i n the c armatc he d the r emai ndero ftha t bi l l e ve ntua l l y r ec o ve r ed f r o m J o hns o n. J ohnson off er ed a c om ple tel y di ffer ent v er si on o f eve nts. H e t est i fi ed that W hi te drove hi m to the TrakA uto sto re so thath e coul d buy auto suppli es. ( The carwas J o hn s o n’ s b utWhi t e wa s the dr i v e r, Johns o n t e s t i fi e d, b ec au se Joh n so n ’s d riv er ’s lic e n se h ad be en rev ok ed .) W hite d rop p ed him offand cont inu ed to the M cD ona ld’s re sta urant. W hi te m et J ohn son l ate r, l oo ki ng j i tte ry, a n d s a i d th a t J o h n s o n ’ s c a r h a d b e e n i n v o l v e d i n s o me m iscond uc t and shou ld be ab an d one d

. W hite t h e n arr an g ed f o r a thi r d pa r ty to d r i ve the m a way, t ak i ng W h ite h om e a n d Joh n so n to a m ot el. Aft er fi n d i n g th e s h o t g u n a n d s o me o f th e l o o t i n J o hns o n ’ s c a r, p o l i c e n a t u r a l l y w a n t e d t o t a l kw i th h i m. T hey tr acke d hi m dow n at the m ote l and g ave h im M i r anda w ar ni ngs; an A ssi sta nt St ate ’ s A tto rneyasked hi m abo utthe e ve nt s. The pr o se cut o r t r i ed to o fferthe r es ul tings ta te m en t atJ o hns o n’ s tr i al, b utthe j ud g e ex c luded i t o n sta te- l aw gr ounds. ( The pros ecuto r had not turned o vera copy o fthe sta tem ent duri ng di sco ver y, as I l l i noi s l aw r equi re s. ) A pro secuto r m ad e th is o ffero f p roof: A .S.A . K ea tin g w ou ld st at e t h at [Joh n so n ] to ld h im that he woke up atapproxi m ate l y 6 : 00 a.m . o nN o. 08

- 1731 5 11/ 11/ 98, went f orso m e ca r parts , had to ta ke There sa [h i s s i ste r] to work. H e was pl anni ng o n g o i n gt o R o b b i n s [ , I l l i n o i s , ] th a tn i g h tf o r s o me pea ce t al kf o r s o m e shoo tinge ar l i er . He tho ug ht he would di e that ni ght, so he dr an k som e wine, sm oke d som e cr ack and w eed. H e w en t to a f r i e n d ’ s h o u s e w h e r e h e h a d s e x in a b a th r o o m, an d h e w ent t o hi s s i ste r’ s a fterthat, and he r em em ber s be i ng i n the hote l wh en the pol i ce c a me t o g e th i m. T his acc ou nt of his activities o n th e d ay of the robbery di d no t i nc l ude a ny i nf o r m at i o n abo utW hi te dr i ving J ohnson to TrakA uto and the o therev ents to w hi ch J o hns o n h ad te st i fi ed. The pr o se cut o r a sk ed J o hns o n a tot alo f25 questi ons that w er e v ar i ati ons on the them e: “I fw h at y ou have j ust t est i fi ed i s t rue, wh y di dn ’ t y ou t e l l the As s i s t a ntS t a t e ’ s At t o r ne y wh e n you mad e yourst ate m ent t o hi m ?” The s tat e j ud ge s u stai ned obj ecti ons to 10 ofthe q u es tio n s, so ther e was no er ro r i n that re spect, se e G reer v. M iller, 4 83 U. S
. 7 56 ( 1987 ), b ut he al l owed the othe r 15, and the federa l di str i ct j ud ge thought thi s a n egr egi ous v i ol ati on o fJ ohnson’ s r i ghts. D oyleh o l ds tha ta de fe nd a ntwh o r e c ei ves M i r anda w ar ni ngs, and i nvok es hi s r i ght t o kee p si l ent, cannot be cr o s s -exam ined abou t tha t sil en ce at trial. Th e C ou rt’s ra ti onal e i s thatM i r anda wa r n i n g s s h o u l d n o tb e c o me a t ra p. Questi ons ofthe “w hy di dn ’ t y ou sa y thi s e ar l i er ?” var i etya sk the j ury to i nfe r that an i nnocent perso n woul d ha ve s po k en, b utM i r anda w ar ni ngs s up plyan expla nati on o ther t h an gui l t f ora suspect’ s s i l ence. S ee Bre ch tv. Abrahamson , 507 U .S. 61 9 , 6 2 8

– 29 (19 93 ). A co ro l-6 N o. 08

- 1731 l ar y i s that, i fthe suspect c h oo se s t o speak afterr ece i vingM i r anda warni ngs, then any di ffer ence bet w een w h at th e p er so n sa ys be f o r e t ria l, an d te st im on y a t t ria l, m ay be t h e su bj ect of qu estions and com m en t. T ha t’s the ho l ding ofA nd erson v. C ha rles : D oyledoes notapplyto cr oss -ex am i nati on that m er el y inquir es i nto pri ori nconsi ste nt st ate
men t s . S uc h qu e s t i o ning mak e s no un f a i r us e o f sile n c e, b ec au se a d efe n d an t w h o v olu n ta rily spe ak s afte r r ec ei vingM i randa warni ngs has not been i nd uced to re m ai n sile nt. A s t o the s ubj ect m att ero fhi s s tat em ents, the defe nd ant has not re m ain ed silen t a t a ll. 447 U .S. a t 408. A nd an o ut- of

- cour t s tat em ent m ay be cal l ed “i nconsi ste n t” w i th the i n-c ourtst ate m ent b ecause o fa c ur i o us o m iss i o n a s wel l a s a fl atc o nt r adi ct i o n. Sh er loc k H olm es rec og n ize d inSi l ve rBla zethat the d og’s f a i l ur e t o b a r k, wh e n ba r k i ngwo ul d h a v e b e e n e xp e c t e d, c o nv e y e d a p o we r fulme s s a g e . S o the Co ur tr e mar k e d: Each oftwo i nconsi ste nt descr i p tions ofev ents m ay be s ai d to i nvol ve “si l ence” i nsof aras i t o m i ts f ac ts i nc l ude d i n the o th erv er si o n. ButD oyledoes no t r equi r e any s uchfo r m al i st i c unde r st an di ng of“s i l ence, ” a nd we fi nd no re aso n to adopt s uch a vi ew i n thi s ca se. Id

. a t 40 9. T hi s i s th e i dea b eh i nd the que st i o ns tha t th e pr o se cut o r a sk ed o n c ross- ex ami na ti o n. J o hns o n t o l d the As s i s t a nt S t a t e ’ s At t o r ne y wha t he ha d do ne o n the day of the r obbe ry . H i s s tor y l eft o ut al l o fthe vi taldetails that he suppli ed on the st and; the p rosec utorthenN o. 08

- 1731 7 i m pl i ed th atthe s to r y to l d i n c o ur t m us t be a r ec en t i nv en ti o n. The A pp el l ate Courto fI l l i noi s a nd the federa l di str i ct cour t f ound a co nsti tuti onalpro bl em fortwo r eas ons. F i r st, the y o bs er ve d tha t J o hns o n’ s st at ementt o the A ss ist an t St at e’s A tt or n ey (a t lea st as su m m ar ize d in th e o ff ero fpr o o f ) di d no t m en ti o n e i th erW hi te o r the ro bber y, so that the questi oni ng at tr i al did n ot co ver the s am e “ subj ect m att er ” a s the st ate m ent. S eco nd , they thought i t har d to see how Jo hnson co uld be quest i oned ab o uti nc o ns i st en ci es b etwee n h i s tr i al test i m o ny a nd hi s s tatem ent t o the Assi sta nt S tat e’ s Attor ney, wh en that sta tem ent was noti n evi dence. N ei thero fthes e poi nts i s e nough , i nd ependentl y, to supp or t the co ncl usi on that the questi ons tr ansgr ess ed the ho l ding ofD oyle

. Tha t th e s tat ementt o the Ass i st an t S ta te ’ s Att o r ne y di d no t m en ti o n W hi te i s th e ve r y thi ng that m ade i t s o curi ous. J ohnson had been a rr est ed at th e m o t e l . H e w as lat er qu es tio n ed ab ou t w h at h e d id on th e d ay o ft h e r ob b er y. H e w aiv ed h is rig h t t o re m ain si l ent ( and thus, o ne m i ght th in k, abandoned the f oundati on f orD oyle ’ s r ule )
. Yet i nstea d ofr el ati n g f acts that, if t ru e, would have l ed to hi s r el eas e fro m custo dy, J o hns o n s ai d o nl y inc o ns eque nt i althi ng s. A j ur y might concl ud e that he did thi s be cause he had yet to inventa sto rythatwas consi ste nt w i th i nnocence

— a nd C ha rles hol ds that once a su sp ec t a gr ees to speakhe m ay be qu estione d abou t tell ing o m issi ons , w hich are a f orm ofi nconsi ste ncy. S ee Ph elps v. D uckw orth , 77 2 F
. 2d 1410 (7th C ir. 1985) (en ban c).8 N o. 08

- 1731 A s for th e fact tha t th e p r osecu tion d id n ot p erform i ts obl i gat i ons i n dis cove ry : A vi ol ati on o fst ate l aw i s no t t h e ba sis for fe d er al c olla te ra l relie f. See , e.g., Es t e l l ev. M cG uire, 50 2 U.S
. 62 ( 1991 )
. I l l i noi s is fr ee t o hol d as a m at te r o fi ts o wn l aw tha t, i fa de fen dan t’ s o ut
- of- cou rt st a t e men th a s b e e n e xc l ud e d fr o m e v i de nc e , n o c ro ssexam i na tio n to draw out inconsi ste ncy be tw een that st at ementa nd the in- co ur t te st i m o ny i s al l o wabl e. But th at is notwh at the s tat e’ s a pp el l ate co urt hel d. It re l i ed onD oyler ather than any sta te rul e r est ri cting cr oss exam i nati on. YetD oyled oe s n otes ta b lish a f ed er al ru le that th e o ut- of

- cour t s tat em ent m ust be i ntro du ced bef or e cr oss - ex am inati on about re veal i ng o m i ssi ons m ay b e c on d u c t ed ; D oyleappli es onl y when the s uspect i nvoke s hi s federa l r i ght t o re m ai n si l ent, wh i ch J ohnson did not

. T h e s ta te d isc ov er y v iola tio n h as p re se n te d a c om p lication of a d ifferent sort for th is p roceed ing, h o w ever. A l l we ha ve is t h e o ffero fpro of

. The fullst ate m ent t o t h e A ssistan t State’s A ttorn ey is not i n th e record

— by whi chwe m ea n, no t i n the f e d e r al r ec o r d. And the ab se n c e o f th e s ta te m en t m ak es it d iff icu lt t o a p p ly D oyle

. W hen, pre ci sely, di d Jo hnson r ecei ve M i r anda w ar ni ngs? ( D oyleap pli es onl y t o post- w ar ni ng st ate m ents oro m i ssi ons. See Fle tche r v. Wei r, 455 U .S. 60 3 (1 98 2).) W as John son reall y sil en t abou t W hite’s rol e? W e d on’t k n o w. Wh a t, i fa n y th i n g, d i d h e s a y ab o u th o w h e c a me to ha ve part ofthe $20 bi l l ? W e don’ t know . Did he say an yth ing abou t how W hite cou ld ha ve carried a saw ed -off s h o t g u n wi th o u th i s kn o wl e d g e ? We d o n ’ tkn o w.N o. 08

- 1731 9 U nl ess C ha rles m eans th at a defe nd ant who say s a nythi ngm ay be cr os s-e x am in ed ab ou t h is fa ilu re to te ll th e whol e st o r y, th e ab se nc e o f th e ful l s ta te m en t i m pede s e v a l u a t i o n . An d i ti s h a r d t o th i n kth a tt he Suprem e Cour t m eant to saythat, ifa suspect tel l s a kno ckk no ckj o k e afte r r ec ei vingM i r anda war ni ng s, a nd th e n c l a ms u p, D oyledr o ps o uto fthe pi ctur e. The su spe ctmusts aye no ug h t o make the o m i ss i o n o fthe sto ry tol d a t tr i al a sound basi s f or an ad ve rs e infe re nce. W e j ust don’ t kn ow w h ether that i s t rue ofthe differ ence betw een J ohn son ’s statem en t to the A ssistan t State’s A ttorn ey an d his testim ony a t tri al. For al l th e record sh o ws, J o hns o n c ha tt ed ami ab l y unt il the Ass i st an t St ate ’ s Attor ney a ske d about the r obbe ry, afterwh i ch he i nvoke d his r i ght t o si l ence. N or m al l y the pri sone r bear s the burden of producti on and the r i sk ofnon- persuas i on i n a federa l co l l ate ra l att ack; afterall, the peti ti oneris cont est i ng a fi nal deci si on ofa sta te cour t. But the f act thatthe sta te’ s a pp el l ate co ur t r ul ed i n J o hns o n’ s f av o r o n the D oyle iss ue m ay h av e le d h i m to th in k it u n n ec es sa ry to m ou n t a fu ll p r e s e n t a t i o n i n th e fe d e r a l p r o c e e d i n g . Wh a t ’ s mor e , we do not know w hetherJ ohnson ( orhi s l aw yers) eve r r e c e i v e d a c o py o f the ful l s t a t e men t
. I t i s the A tto rney G en eralo fI l l i noi s who w ants to conte st the s tat e j ud ic i a r y ’ s r e s o l u t i o n o fthe D oylequesti on

— yetthe A tto rney Generaldi d not furni sh the federa l co u rt w i th a com ple te c opy of J ohnson’ s sta tem ent. U nd er the ci rcum sta nces, it i s be st to p ro c ee d as the sta te cour t di d: To as sum e that D oylebar re d at l eas t s om e o fthe 15 qu est i ons to w hi ch obj ec ti o ns wer e o ve r r ul ed, a nd t o a skwhethe r the er ro r w as harm l ess .10 N o. 08

- 1731 The harm l ess - er ro r questi on has so m e diffi cul ti es ofi ts ow n. The fi rs t i s the st andard offedera l r evi ew . S ecti on 2254 ( d) pr ovi des: A n appli cati on f ora w rit o fhabea s co rpus o n be ha l fo fa pe r so n i n c us to dy pur su an t to the j ud gm ent o fa St ate co urt shal l notbe gr anted w i th r espect to any c l ai m thatwas adj ud i cate d on the m er i ts i n St ate co urt pr oc ee dings unl ess th e a d j u d ica tio n of th e c laim

— ( 1) r esulted i n a deci si on that was co ntra ryto , or i nv olved an u nrea son able ap p lication of, cl ear l y e stabl i shed Feder allaw, as deter m i ned by the S up re m e Cour t o fthe U ni ted S tat es; o r ( 2) resul ted in a d eci si on that w as base d on an u n re as on ab le d et er m in at ion of t h e fa c ts in l i ght o f t h e evi dence pres ented i n the St ate cour t pr oce edi ng. H ow d oes thi s l anguage applywh en t he st ate co urt has f ound a vi ol ati on o fthe Consti tuti on but concl ud ed that th e er r o rwas ha r m l es s? On e a ppr o ac h, whi chthe dist ri ct c ourtused i n re l i ance onFry v . P liler, 551 U
. S. 11 2 ( 20 07 ) , i s to t ac k l e th e i ss ue i nde pen den tl y, us i ngthe st an d ar d laid d ow n inBr e ch t : W he th erthe D o y levi ol atio n “h ad su b st an tia l an d inju riou s e ffec t o r in flu en c e in de t e r mi ningthe j ur y ’ s v e r di ct. ” Th e o the r p o s s ib l e a pproa ch i s to ask w hether the sta te cour t appli ed feder al l a w u n r e a s o n a b l y w he n h o l d i n gth a tth e e r r o r w a s h a r ml ess bey ond a r eas onabl e doub t. Se e M i t ch e l l v. Es parza , 54 0 U .S. 12 (20 03 ). T h e rea so n ab le-d ou b t sta n d a r d is th e right o ne o n dir ect appeal, se e Ch apm an v. C alif ornia ,N o. 08

- 1731 11 386 U .S . 18 (1967), j us t as the sub stan tial- effect stan d ard i s a p p r o p r i a t e o n c o l l a t e r a l r e v i e w. Espa rza h o l ds tha t, wh e n a s t a t e c o ur th as f ou nd a c on st itu tio n al e rro r h ar m les s b ey o n d a re as on ab le doubt, the f edera l co urt’ s ini ti alquesti on is w h etherthat deci si on r epres ents an “unre aso nabl e a pp l i cati on o f c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s he d F e d e r a l l a w”
. T h e J u s t i c e s w r o t e : “ We m ay not grant [a] habe a s p etition .
. . i f th e state cou rt sim p ly erred i n con clud ing tha t the State’s errors w ere h ar m les s; ra th er , ha b ea s re lief is a p p ro p ria te on l y if the [ St ate ] Courto fA pp eal s a pp l i ed harm les s-er ro r review in an ‘obj ectively un reason able’ m an ne r. ” 540 U
. S. at 18. The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not m enti onEs parza . I t r el i ed on Fry f orthe propos i ti on that a federa l co urt shoul d m ake ani nde pen den t dec i si on (tho ug h un derthe Br e ch t st an dar d r athe r th an th e r ea so nabl e- do ubts ta nda r d)

. The q u es tio n atiss u e in Fry, how ever, w as n o t w he th er a f edera l co urt shoul d disre ga rd a sta te cour t’ s co nsi dered deci si on o n the subj ect ofhar m l ess er ro r. It was i nstea d whata fede r alc ou r t sh o ul d do i fthe s ta te c o ur t co ncl ud es that no co nsti tuti onaler ro r occur red and ther ef o r e do es no t m ak e a ha r m l es s- er r o r de ci si o n. I fthe f edera l co urt concl ud es th at co nsti tuti onaler ro r too k pla ce, and the l astst ate co urt to add re ss the c ase di d not appl y a ny k i nd o fha r m l es s- er r o rr ev i ew, whi chi s th e a pp r o pr i a t e s t a nd a r d: Br e ch to r Chapman ? T he C o urt h el d thatBr e ch ts uppl i es the s ta nda r d f o r a fede r alcou rt t o us e i n a l l co l l a t e r a l at t a c k s , whe n mak i nga n i nd e pe nd

ent e val uati on o fa tr i aler ro r’ s e ffects
.12 N o. 08

- 1731 Fry d id n otov er ru le Es parza . T o the contr ar y, the J usti ces w rote , “[i ]nM it chel l v. Es parza , 54 0 U.S
. 12 ( 2003 ) ( per curi am ) , we hel d that, wh en a sta te cour t dete rm i nes th at a con stitut ional vi olation i s harm less, a fed e r a l cou rt m ay n o ta wa r d h a b e a s r e l i e fu n d e r § 2 2 5 4 u n l e s s the harm l ess ness deter m i nati on i tse l fwas unreas onabl e. P et itio n er co n te n d s t h at §2 25 4(d )(1) , a s in te rp re te d in Espa rza , el i m i nates the re quir em ent that a peti ti oner also satisfyBr e ch t ’s stand ard

. W e thin k not.” 551 U

. S. at 119. I fthe sta te c ou rthas conducted a har m l ess - er ro r anal ysi s, the f edera l cour t m ust deci de w heth er that an al y si s was a r ea so nabl e appl i ca ti o n o fthe Chapman st an d ar d . I f th e a n sw er is ye s, th en t h e f ed er al c as e is ove r and no co l l ate ra l r el i efi ssues . That’s th e ho l ding of Es p a rza . If the a ns wer i s no

— ei therbec ause the s tat e cour t nev erco nd ucted a harm l ess - er ro r anal ysi s, o r b ec ause i t a pp l i ed Chapman u n re as on ab ly

— the n § 2 2 5 4 ( d) drops o ut o fth e p ictur e a nd the federa l co urt m ust m ake an ind ependent deci si on, j ust a s i fthe sta te cour t had neveraddress ed t h e subj ect at al l

. A nd we know fr om Fry tha t, whenthi s i s so, a fede r alc o ur t m us t appl y the Bre ch tst andard to deter m i ne wh ether th e e rr orwas h ar m les s. Se e al s o , e .g., Sm iley v . Thu rm er, 54 2 F
. 3d 574, 583– 84 (7 t h C ir. 2008 ); A lem a n v . Sternes , 32 0 F
. 3d 687 ( 7th C ir. 2003). So di d the s tat e’ s a pp el l ate co urt anal yze the harm l ess er ro r questi on r eas onabl y? Because i ts opi ni on i s unpubl i shed ( and not av ai l abl e o n the I nter net) , we re produce the per ti nent por ti on her e:N o. 08

- 1731 13 Befo re a const i tuti onaler ro r can be h el d harm l ess , the r e v i e wi ngc o ur tmus tb e ab l e t o c o nc l ud e beyo nd a re aso nabl e doubt that the e rro r did not contr ibute to the fi nd i ng o fgui l t. P eop le v . Av erha rt, 311 I l l

. A pp . 3d 49 2, 50 5–06 , 724 N
. E.2 d 1 54 ( 1999 ) ci tingCh apm an v. C a li fo rni a , 38 6 U.S
. 18 , 24 , 87 S
. Ct. 82 4, 82 8, 17L. Ed. 2 d 7 05 , 7 10 –1 1 ( 19 67 )
. The b ur de n o fp r o ofis onthe S t a t e t o s ho w b e y o nd a re as on ab le d ou b t t h att h e jur y v er d ict w ou ld ha ve bee n th e sam e a b sen t the error. Pe opl ev. Thur ow , 203 I ll

. 2 d 3 52, 363 , 786 N
. E
. 2d 1019 (2003). The r e a r e fi ve f ac to r s co ur ts co ns i deri n de te r m i ning w he th er a D oylev i o l a t i o n i s h a r ml e s s b e y o nd a re aso nabl e doubt: ( 1) the i nt en si ty and fr equency ofthe re f er ences to the defendant’s si l ence; ( 2) w hi ch p ar ty el ecte d to pursue the li ne ofquesti oni ng; ( 3) the use tha t th e pros ecuti on m ade of th e d efend an t’s silence ; (4) th e t rialcou rt’s opp ortuni ty to gr ant a m oti on f orm istri alo r to gi ve a curat i ve j ury i nstru c tio n; and ( 5) the quantum o f othe r evi dence es tabli shi ng defendant’s gui l t. Peop l e v. D am e r on , 19 6 I l l

. 2d 15 6, 16 4, 75 1 N
. E.2 d 1111 ( 2001 ). I n l i ght o fthe ove rwhelm i ng qu antum o fev i dence ofdefendant’s gui l t a s e stablished fro m the eye wi t ne s s i de nt i fi c a t i o n t e s t i m ony, we c o nc l ud e th atthe D oylevio l ati on w as harm l ess beyond a r eas o n a b l e d o u b t
. D e fe n d a n twa s i d e n t i fi e d b y t wo eye w i tness es w hose i denti fi cati ons w er e r el i abl e. F ac to r s th ata r e co ns i der ed i n de te r m i ni ngthe r e l i a b i l i t y o fa n o ut
- o f

- c o ur ti de nt i fi c a t i o n i nc l ud e14 N o. 08

- 1731 the witness’ s o pp ortuni ty to vi ew the accused at the t i m e the cr i m e occur re d, the witness’ s degr ee of att enti on, the accura cy ofthe w itness’ s pri or descri pti on, the degre e o fcer tai nty dem onst ra ted by th e wi tn es s at th e su bs eque nt co nfr o nt at i o n, an d t he a m o unto ft i m e th atpa ss es b etwee n the cr i m e an d the c o nfr o nt at i o n. Pe opl ev. Tayl or, 14 3 Ill. A p p . 3d 25 2, 25 5, 49 2 N .E .2d 10 11 (19 86 ). In th is c as e, th e a rm ed rob b er y oc c u rre d in a fu lly illu m in a t e d r e s t a u r a n t wi th th e o ffe n d e r i n c l o s e p r o x i mi ty to th e ey ew i tness es, m aki ng no att em pt to con ceal his i d en tity. M oreover, th e a rm ed robbery l ast ed approxi m ate l y t en m i nutes, d u ri ng wh i ch ti m e the o ff ender or dered S usanna Ram os to open he r c as h re g i st era nd mom en ts l at ero r der ed th e m an ag er, Al i ci a Or te g a, t o s eque nt ia l l y o penf o ur cash r egi ste rs . The r ec o r d i ndi ca te s th atM o ni que Nol ana nd Susanna Ram os both had suffi ci ent o pp or tuni ty to o bs er ve the o ff en derdur i ngthe a r m ed r o bb er y a nd both w er e pa ying att enti on. N ol an te sti fi ed that du ri ng the ar m ed robbe ryshe sto od onl y fi ve to si x feet aw ayfr o m the o ffen dera nd tha t sh e co nt i n u a l l y l o o k e d a n d p e e k e d a t th e o ffe n d e r fr o m a cor ner ofthe em plo yee ar ea ofthe re sta urant. Ra mos t e s t i fi e d tha twh e n the o f f e nd e r fi r s ta pp ro ac h ed h er atth e fro n t c ou n te r , sh e loo ke d h im i n the f ace and aske d fo r hi s o rder

. A ccor ding to Ram os, the offender sto od at the fro n t co unter f orabo ut a m i nute without r espondi ng and then w al ked away. M i nutes l ate r, the offender re turnedN o. 08

- 1731 15 to the c ounterw here h e poi nted a s aw ed-o ffsho tgun at Ram os’ ches t and d em anded that she open h e r c a s h r e g i s t e r . R a mo s t e s t i fi e d t h a ta tth i s t i me th e sh o tgun a ctua l l y touc he d he r c he sta nd s he l oo ked di re ctl y a t the o ffender’ s f ace f oro ne to two min ut es b efo r e tu r ni nga way b ec au se s he wa s fr i g ht e ne d. D efend an t argu es th at N olan’s and R am os’ f ail ure to describe hi s f aci alhai r re nd er ed thei r i denti fi cati o ns unr el i ab l e. W e di sa g r ee . “Expe r i en ce te l l s us th ata n i den ti fi ca ti o n i s no t us ua l l y m ade b y di st i ngui shi ng se parat e features but by the to tali m pressi on m ade upon the w i tness
. ” P eople v. Sm it h , 52 Ill. A pp . 3d 58 3, 58 7, 36 7 N
. E.2 d 7 56 (19 77)
. Thus, cou rts ha ve g e n erall y held that an eyew itness ’s f a i l ur e t o i nc l ud e f a c i a l h a i r i n a n i ni t i a l de s c r i pti o n c o ns ti tu te s a m i no r di sc r epa nc y, a ffec ting the cre dibi l i ty of the descri pti on, but not d es tr oyi ng the val i dity o fthe i dent ificati on t est i m ony. Tayl or, 1 4 3 I l l

. A p p . 3 d a t2 5 5
. U n d e r th e c i r c u mstan ces of th is c a se, N olan’s and Ram os’ f ail ure to describe defendant’s f aci alhai r i n theiri ni ti al d es c rip tio n of d efe n d an t d id n otr e n d e r th eir i denti fi cati on t est i m ony unrel i abl e. T h e r e f o r e , w e fi n d t h a ti n l i g h to fth e o v e r wh e l mi ng quantum o fev i dence of d efendant’s gui l t a s est abl i shed fr om the eye w i tness i denti fi cati on te stim ony, the D oylevi ol ati on was har m l ess beyond a re aso nabl e doubt. W e ar e convi nced that th e j ur y w ou ld ha ve co nv i ct ed defen dan t16 N o. 08

- 1731 abse nt the pro secuto r’s i m properr efer ence to defe nd ant’ s pos t-M i r anda si l ence. Thi s pas sa g e a r ti cul at es the Chapman r ul e ac cur at el y, a nd i tr e a d s l i k e a r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n . I t i s i n s o me re sp ects f avo rabl e t o J ohnson

— i t r eco gni zes a w eakness i n the e y e wi t ne s s t e s t i mon y, a nd i t do e s no t re l y o n anythi ng tha t W h i te sai d, the t or n $20 bi l l, the f act that the m anage r ofthe TrakA uto sto re te sti fi ed that J o hn s o n di s pl a y e d a wa d o fcr umpl e d b i l l s , o r the s a we doffshotg un and l oot foun d i n h is car. Joh n so n co n te n d s t h at N ola n an d R am os ga ve te st im ony a t o dds wi ththa t o fW hi te , who s ai d tha t th e ro bber y s tar ted so on a fterthey enter ed the re sta urant, r athe r tha n a few mi nut es l at er . Di sagreem en ts abo ut ti m e a re co m m on i n eye w i tness te sti m ony; a few m i nutes m ays ee m l i k e m uchl o ng er to s o m eo ne s ta r i nga t th e b ar re l of a sa w ed -off s h ot gu n . I t is alm os t a lw ay s p os sib le to fi nd i nconsi ste nci es i n the n ar ra ti ons ofm ult i ple ey ewi tn esse s, a nd i nc o ng r ui ti es i n the s to r y o fa ny o ne eye w i tness
. The sho rt com i ngs o fhum an o bserv atio n and m em or y do not m ake i t unre aso nabl e f ora sta te c ou rtto find an err or h ar m les s b ey on d a re as on ab le doubt. Questi ons that vi ol ate D oyle ’ s rul e a re unl i kel y t o ch an g e a j ur y ’ s m i nd. The se que st i o ns do no t g etda m ni ng ev id en c e b efo re th e jur y, an d “w h y d id n ’t you te ll th is sto rybefor e?” is som ethi ng tha t j uror s a re l i kel y t o w onder, wh ethero r not a pro se c u to r m ake s the questi on expli ci t. Pe r ha ps we wou l d ha ve r ea ch ed a di ffer en t co nc l us i o n, h ad w e been f aced w i th the harm l ess - er ro r questi on inN o. 08

- 1731 17

a ca se o n di r ec t appe ali n fede r alc o ur t. Bu t w he the r the st at e co urt er re d (in the sense thatfedera l j ud ges w oul d have deci ded o ther w i se) does not m att erunder §2 25 4( d)

. W e as ko nl y whethe r the st at e co ur t’ s r es o l uti on was r eas onabl e. Thi s co nsid er ed concl usi on was r e a s o nab l e , s o the s t a t e c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n mus ts t a nd

. R EVER S ED

C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e, concurr i ng. The dist ric t c ourt, afterwh at s eem s t o m e t o be a se ar chi ng anal ysi s under Bre ch t, r eached a poi nt wh er e i t was i n “grave doubt” about the har m l ess ness ofthe D oyle error in Johns on’s sta te cour t t ri aland, ci ti ng Fry v. P liler, r es olv ed i ts sta te of “eq u ip ois e” b y gra n tin g th e ha b ea s p e t i tio n . See Fry v. P l iler, 127 S. C t. 23 21 , 232 8 n .3 (20 09 ) (“W e h av e p re viousl y hel d that, w hen a cour t i s ‘ i n vi rtual equi poi se as to the har m l ess ness ofthe er ro r’ under the Bre ch t st an d ar d , th e c ou rtsh ou ld ‘tre at th e e rro r . . . a s if it aff ecte d th e ver dict

. . . . ’ ”) ( quoting O ’Neal v. M cAninch , 513 U
. S. 432, 435 (1995 ))
. The m aj or ity reso l ves the quest i on o fthe harm l ess ness ofthe D o yle viol ation by find ing t h a t the sta te cou rt ap p l i e d s e t t l e d l a w r e a s o n a b l y u n d e r § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) , a nd ther ef or e doe s no t r each the Fry / Bre ch tqu es tio n . Th is see m s un set tl i ng be cause i t poi nts t o tensi on be tw een o urp r e c e de ntr e g a r di ng“r e a s o nab l e ne s s ” und e r § 2 2 5 4 ( d)18 N o. 08

- 1731 and the S up re m e Cour t’ s p re c ed ent o n how to r eso l ve qu e s t io ns of ha rm lessne ss u nd er Bre ch t
. I n the e nd , Ibel i eve the leg al gym nasti cs c an, per haps, be re du ced to a di ff er ence ofo pini on about the e ffect ofthe er ro r i n questi on. The di str i ct c ourtj ud ge w as convi nced that the D o yle e r r o r ma d e a d i ffe r e nc e i n th e o u t c o me o fJ o hns o n’ s tr i al( o r he ha d gra ve do ubt s, a ny way )
. The maj o r i t y o n a pp e a l b e l i e v e s tha ta D o y le vi ol ati on r ar el y, ifev er, make s th i s k i nd o fa di ffer en ce a nd tha t th e s t a t e c o ur twa s the r e f o r e r e a s o nab l e i n f i nd i ngi tma de no di ff er ence here

. Because hab eas peti ti ons ar e s ubj ect to de novo r evi ew , the maj o r i tya na l y si s r es ul ts i n a r ev er sa l

. Butthe m aj or i ty does l i ttl e t o cl ar i fy ho w di str i ct cou rt s a re to appl y § 2 25 4( d) ’ s “r eason ab l en es s” i nqui r y i n the l i g ht of Fry ’ s instr ucti on t o “ass ess the prej u d icia l i m pact o f const i tuti onaler ro r i n a s tat e-co urt cri m i nal tr i alunder th e . . . s ta nda r d s etf o r thi n Bre ch t, ” a nd a p p arentl y t o gr ant the peti ti on w here “gr ave doubts” l ead to a st ate of“e quipoi se .” Fry, 12 7 S
. Ct. at23 28 & n. 3. A l though these co m pli cation s are tr oubl i ng, Ido notfi nd them ade qua te g r o un d s to di sa g r ee wi ththe o ut co m e an d th er efo r e Ij o i n the maj o r i tyo pi ni o n.

7- 14- 09