## 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. 09

- 3535 A RIS E THERLY, P etitio ner-A pp ellee, v. G REG O RY S CHW ART Z, R es pond ent -App el lant.

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 Di v isi on. No . 1:07- cv-00057

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Judg e.
A RGUED D ECE MBE R 11, 2009

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 31, 2009

Befo re B AUER, R IPPLE, an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . In 1 9 9 7, fift ee n -ye ar -old A ris E th er ly w as convi cted bya j ury i n I l l i noi s s tat e cou rt of m urder ar i si ngfr o m the s hooting dea tho fJ er emy Rus h. The co ur t se nt en ce d Et he r l y t o a f o r ty
- y ea r t er m o fi m pr i so nm en t. O n ap p ea l, E th er ly a rg u ed , inte r alia , t h a t h is inc u lp at or y s ta te m en t w as inv olu n ta ry . H is c on victi on was affir m ed by th e Illino is A p p ella te C ou rt, an d th e Illino is Suprem e Cour t deni ed l eave t o ap peal

. Ether l y then fi l ed a peti ti on f ora w ri t o fhabea s co rp us i n f edera l di str i ct cour t.2 N o. 09

- 3535 On Augu st2 8, 2 00 9, a ddr essingo nl y Ethe r l y ’ s i nv o l unta ry st a te m en t c laim , th e d ist ric t c ou rtgra n te d th e p et ition. Sub seq ue nt ly, the d istri ct cou rt de nied the sta te’s m ot ion for t h e c ou rtto st ay it s ju d gm en t p en d in g a p p ea l, an d c o nc ur r en tl y g r an te d the s ta te ’ s m o ti o n t o a lter the j ud gm ent, o rder i ng tha t Ether l y b e r etr i ed orr el eas ed w i thi n 120 days. The st ate t h en fi l ed a t i m el y no ti ce o f appeal to thi s co urt. On D ecem b er 11, thi s co urt hear d or al ar gum ents pu rs ua ntt o 2 8 U. S

. C. § § 1 2 9 1 a nd 2 2 5 3
. We no w address the m oti on t o st ay , and an o pini on r ega rdi ng the di str i ct cour t’ s gr ant of Etherl y’ s peti ti on f or a w ri t of h ab eas cor pu s i s f or thcom i ng. W he n a di st r i ctc o ur t ha s g r an ted ha be as r el i ef, the peti ti oner is gr anted a presum pti on i n f avo r ofr el eas e p en d in g a p p ea l. O ’Brie n v. O ’Laughlin , 1 30 S. C t. 5, 6 (2009); H il ton v. Braunskill , 4 8 1 U. S

. 7 7 0 , 7 7 7 ( 1 9 8 7 )

. B u tt he sta te can o ver com e th i s pre sum pti on “ i fthe tr adit i onal f acto rs r egulat in g the i ssuance ofa sta y wei gh i n f avo r of gr anti ng a sta y .” O ’B rien , 1 3 0 S

. C t
. a t6
. T h e f a c t o r s we r ev i ew a r e ( 1) w he th er the s ta te ha s m ade a s tr o ng showing th at i t i s l i kel y t o succee d on the m er i ts ofi ts appeal ; ( 2) w h etherthe sta te w i l l be i rr eparabl y har m ed ab se n t a st ay ; (3) w h e t h e r t h e is su an c e o f a st ay w ill substa nti al l y i nj ure the o therpart i es to the pr oce ed ing; an d (4) w h er e t h e p u b lic in te re st lies. Id. ; H i l t on , 481 U
. S. at 776. As to th e fi r st f ac to r, unde r th e Anti te r r o r ism a nd Ef f e c t i v e De a t h Pe na l t y Ac t( “ AEDP A” ) , h a b e a s r e l i ef m ayo nl y b e g ran te d whena s ta te c o ur t dec i si o n i s “c o n-N o. 09

- 3535 3 trary to, or i nv olved a n u n r eason able ap p li cation of, cl ear l y e stabl i shed Fe derall aw ” o r “w as base d on an unr ea so nabl e det er m i na ti o n o fthe f ac ts i n l i g hto fthe evi dence pres ented. ” 2 8 U.S

. C. § 2 254( d); Willi am s v. Taylo r, 529 U .S. 36 2, 40 4-0 5 (2 00 0). In ligh t o f th e h i gh ly defe r e nt i a l s t a nd a r d a nd a ft e r h a v i nga n o pp o r t unit y to re vi ew the ar gum ents, co nt ra ryto the dist ri ct c ourt, w e a re notpersuaded that the st ate has f ai l ed to sho w a s ubstanti al l i kel i hood o fsucce ss on the m er i ts. The other f acto rs bal ance Etherl y’s i nter esti n re l eas e ag ai ns t the s ta te ’ s i nt er es t i n c o nt i nui ngc us to dy pen di ng appeal, and p re ve nti ng unnecess ar y dange r to the public. A p et itio n er ’s in te re st in re lea se is u n q u es tio n ab ly i m po r tant, espe ci al l y whenthe r e i s a l i k el i ho o d tha t th e cou rt w il l rule in f a v or ofthe p etitioner. T he state’s i nt er es t i n c o nt i nui ngc us to dy, ho wev er, i s al so s tr o ng du e t o the f act that Ethe rly w as c onvi cted bya j ury f or fi rs t- degre e m urder and he has apparentl y had se ver al i nci dents o fthr eat ened oractual vi ol en c e acco rdi ng to hi s D epart m ent o fCor re cti ons re cor d. Because i t i s no t re aso nabl y l i kel y that thi s co urt w i l l affi rm the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s g ra n t o f h ab ea s re lief, w e fin d th a t t h e t ra d iti onalf acto rs fo r a stay o ver com e the peti ti oner ’ s pre sum pti on i n f avo r ofr el eas e. W e there f or e g ra nt the state’ s m oti on fo r a stay o fr el eas e.

12- 31- 09