T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). In p arti cu lar, the ju ryco n v ict ed M r. F arrell o f fir st- d eg ree m u rde r (a 1 v iolati o n o f C o l. R ev . S tat . § 1 8 -3-1 0 2 (1)(a)); felon yfirst -de g ree m u rde r (a v iolati o n o f C o l. R ev . S tat . § 1 8 -3-1 0 2 )(1)(b)); r o b b eryo f a n at-ri sk ad u lt(a v iolati o n o f C o l. R ev . S tat . § 1 8 -6.5-1 0 3 (4) a n d 1 8 -4-3 0 1 ); ag g rav ated rob b ery(a v iolati o n o f C o l. R ev . S tat . § 1 8 -4-3 0 2 (1)(a)); seco n d -de g ree k idn ap p ing (a (c o n tin u e d ...) 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT AN TON I O FA RRELL, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, N o. 05- 1141 v. ( D . C ol or ado) RI CK S OAR E S , Wa r d e n ; a n d J OHN SU T H E R S, A t t orneyG ener al , St at e of C o lo ra d o , R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . 0 3 - c v - 0 0 2 8 6 - REB - BNB)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , AN DE RS ON , and M CCO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. P e tit io n e r A n to n io F a rre ll w a s c o n v icte d a f ter a ju rytrial in C o lo ra d o sta te courtof el even offens es ar i s i ng outof the N ovember1996 abduct i on and murde r of B arbar a C as t orand s ubs equentbur gl ar i es . H e r ece i ved a mandat oryl i fe 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 v iolati o n o f C o l. R ev . S tat . § 1 8 -3-3 0 2 ); tw o co u n ts of sec o n d -de g ree b u rglary ( vi ol at i ons of C ol . R ev. St at . §18- 4- 203( 2) ( a) ) ; theft( a vi ol at i on of C ol . R ev. St at . § 18- 4- 401( a) ( a) ) ; fi r s t - degr ee c r i m i nal tr es pas s ( a vi ol at i on of § 18- 4- 5 0 2 ); a n d tw o c o u n ts o f c o n s p ir a c y(v io la tio n s o f C o l. R e v . S ta t. § 1 8 -2 -2 0 1 (1 )) . T he tr i al courts ent ence d M r . Farr el l t o a mandat oryl i fe s ent ence forthe mer ged fi r s t - degr ee mur derconvi ct i ons and conc ur r ents ent ence s forthe aggr avat ed robbery , kidnapp i ng , second -degree burgl ary , theft, fi rs t -degree cr i m i nal tres pass, a n d c o n sp ira c yc o n v ictio n s. In a d d iti o n , the trial c o u rt, fin d in g e x tra o rd in a rily aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s , s ent ence d M r . Farr el l t o cons ecut i ve s ent ence s t ot al i ng fi fty - s i x y ear s forthe convi ct i ons of r obberyof an a t - r i s k adul tand s e c o n d - d e g r e e b u r g l a r ya g a i n s ta s e c o n d v i c t i m.

- 2- sent ence a nd add i t i on al con secut i ve sentences t otal i ng fi ft y -s i x y ears . A t M r. F arrell ’s tri al, the p rose cu ti o n o ffere d a v ideo tape d stat em en t of M r. Farr el l ’ s co- defe ndant , K evi n B l ankens hi p, w ho t ol d pol i ce offi cer s t hathe and M r . Farr el l had ki dnapped M r s . C as t or , dr i ven hert o an i s ol at ed ar ea, t i ed herup and l efther there. T hen , M r. B l ank enship sai d, t he tw o m en h ad b roken int o M rs . C as t or ’ s hous e and a nearbygar age a nd s t ol en money , w eapons , and other p ro p e rt y . T he C olor ado C ou rtof A pp eal s r eversed M r. F arr el l ’s con vict i on s, co n clud ing that the a d m issi o n o f M r. B lank en sh ip’s stat em en t violated M r. Farr el l ’ s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o confr ontt he w i tnes s es agai ns thi m and that th e e rr o r w a s n o t h a rm le s s . See P e op le v . Fa rr e ll , 1 0 P .3 d 6 7 2 (C o lo . C t. A p p . 20 00 ). H ow ever, the C olor ado S up rem e C ou rtdis agreed w i th thatanaly si s, hol di ng t hatM r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ementw as “s uffi ci ent l ys el f- i ncul pat or yt o be deemed r el i abl e, ” and that , as a r es ul t , t he admi s s i on of the s t at ementdi d not- 3-

viol at e M r. F arr el l ’s C on front at i on C l ause ri gh t s. P e op le v . Fa rr e ll , 34 P. 3d 401, 4 0 4 (C o lo. 20 0 1 ). M r . Farr el l then fi l ed a 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s corpus pet i t i on i n the fede r al di s tr i ctcourt . A l though thatcour tdi s agr eed w i th s om e of the C ol or ado S u p rem e C o u rt ’s an aly sis, ittoo co n clud ed that M r. B lank en sh ip’s o u t- o f-c o u rt sta tem e n t w a s s u fficie n tlyre liab le to su p p o rt its a d m iss io n w ith o u t an o p p o rtu n ity forcr os s - exami nat i on. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253. U pon r evi ew o f th e re co rd a n d the a p p li ca b le l aw , w e c o n clud e tha t th e a d m issi o n o f M r. B la n k e n s h ip ’s s ta te m e n t v io la te d M r. F a rr e ll’ s C o n f ro n ta tio n C la u s e ri g h ts . H ow ever , w e furtherconcl ude thatthi s err ordi d nothave a “s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous effectori nfl uence i n det erm i ni ng the j ury ’ s ver di ct . ” B r echtv. A br aham s on , 507 U . S. 619, 623 ( 1993) ( quot i ng Kot t eakos v. Uni t ed Stat es , 328 U . S . 7 5 0 , 7 7 6 (19 4 6 )). W e the refo re a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f M r. Farr el l ’ s § 2254 pet i t i on.

I . BA CKGROUND W e fi r s tdi s cus s the pert i nentfac t s under l y i ng M r . Farr el l ’ s convi ct i ons and then sum m ari ze rel evan tcou rtproceed i ng s. A . T he cr i m es and M r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ement I n No v e mb e r1 9 9 6 , n e i g h b o r s o f 7 6 - y e a r - o l d Ba rb a r a Ca s t o rs a w u n k n o wn- 4-

i ndi vi dual s i n herB r i ght on, C ol or ado home and cont act ed the pol i ce, w ho found i tr ans acke d and l oot ed. W hi l e pol i ce w er e i nves t i gat i ng the r es i dence , M i chae l M al donado arr i ved atM r s . C as t or ’ s hous e. O ffi cer s arr es t ed hi m on an ou t st and i ng w arr ant. M r. M al do nad o tol d them that he and tw o o ther t eenag ers , M r. F arr el l and M r. B l ank enship, had l oo t ed the r esi den ce. M r. M al do nad o als o s t at ed t o the off

i cer s thatthe thr ee of

them had st ol en guns fr om a gar age a t a n o th e r h o u se . M r. M a ld o n a d o re p o rte d th a t M r. F a rre ll an d M r. B lan k e n sh ip sa id th e h o m e o w n e r w o u ld n o t re tu rn b e c a u se th e yh a d “ tak e n c a re o f” h e r. S tate C t. R e c . v o l.1 2 , a t 4 2 2 . B ase d o n info rm ati o n o b tai n ed fro m M r. M aldo n ad o an d o thers, office rs arr es t ed M r . B l ankens hi p and M r . Farr el l ata fr i end’ s hous e atappr oxi m at el y10 p .m . o n N o v e m b e r 1 8 , 1 9 9 6 . O ffice rs fo u n d item s b e lo n g in g to M rs. C a sto r in th e p o c k e ts o f

b o th y o u n g m e n a n d in th e ro o m w h e re th e yw e re a rr e s te d . O ffic e rs tr a n s p o rt e d b o th s u s p e c ts to th e A d a m s C o u n ty su b s ta tio n . At1 1 : 5 0 p . m. , De t e c t i v e s J o h n W i l l i a ms a n d Ha r o l d La ws o n o f th e Ad a ms C ountySher i ff’ s D epart m entbegan t o ques t i on M r . B l ankens hi p. A tthe beg i nn i ng of the i nterview , t he d et ect i ves read M r. B l ank enship hi s Mi r anda w a rn in g s , a n d h e a g re e d to ta lk . M r. B l ank enship fi rs tassert ed thathe an d M r. F arr el l had st olen M rs . C asto r’s car a t a K -M art st o re in B ri g h ton , fo u n d h er d ri v er’s li ce n se in the c ar, and l oot ed herhous e befor e s he r etur ned. W hen the det ect i ves as ked w hythe- 5-

y oung m en had r eturned t o the hous e overs ever al day s w i thoutconce rn about M r s . C as t or ’ s r eturn, M r . B l ankens hi p r es ponded, “I don’ tknow . ” St at e’ s E x. 78 (B lank en sh ip T r. ) at 10 . D etec ti v e W il li am s the n said , “O k ay , K ev in . . . I’m gonna gets er i ous now . ” Id . T he det ect i ves expl ai ned thatM r . Farr el l had bee n “s hoot i ng hi s m outh off to h is g irlfr ien d ” a n d to M r. M a ld o n a d o , an d th a t p o lice h a d a lre a d ysp o k e n w ith th e m . Id . a t 1 1 . D e tec tiv e W ill iam s to ld M r. B lan k e n sh ip th a t “w e ’v e b e e n to ld w h at T o n y ’s be en say ing , that the lad y ’s be en in the tru n k , an d that the lad y ’s s om ew her e outi n a fi el d. ” Id . at 11 . M r. B lank en sh ip resp o n d ed , “I k n o w , that’s

. . . w hatI w ant ed t o t al k t o y ou about . ” Id . T h e o fficers stressed to M r. B la n k e n s h ip th a t th e yn e e d e d to fin d M rs . C a s to r b e c a u s e s h e m ig h t s till b e a liv e . T heyurged h i m t o rel ease the “w ei gh ton [his ] s ho ulder s” byhelpi ng t o find M rs . C as t ort o “make i tr i ghtw i th herfami l y . ” Id . at27. M r . B l ankens hi p l at eradmi t t ed thathe di d notknow w her e M r s . C as t orw as beca us e he di d notknow w her e he a nd M r . Farr el l had l efther . H e s t at ed thatt he tw o y o u n g m e n h a d a sk e d M rs. C a sto r fo r a rid e , an d th a t sh e h a d d riv e n th e m to a g a s s tatio n a n d to ld th e m to g e t o u t. M r. F a rre ll g o t o u t, bu t M r. B lan k e n sh ip b ran d ishe d a B B g u n an d told h er to k ee p d ri v ing . S h o rt lythere af ter, M r. B l ankens hi p di r ect ed hert o s t op. H e for ced he ri nt o the trunk and then r etur ned t o pi ck up M r . Farr el l . T he tw o m en dr ove for“a l ong w ay , ” id . at31, unt i l they r eac hed a de s ert ed ar ea. T her e, M r . Farr el l and M r . B l ankens hi p t i ed M r s . C as t or- 6-

to a c e m e n t stru c tu re w ith strin g a n d a b lan k e t f ro m h e r c a r. T h e yp ro c e e d e d to pi l e pi ece s of w ood, r ocks , and a s par e t i r e on t op of her . A s theyw er e dr i vi ng a w a y , M r. B la n k e n s h ip c la im e d th a t M r. F a rr e ll s a id “ [ G ]o d w ill g e t u s fo r t h is ,” s o th e ys a id a p ra y e r. Id . a t 3 6 . M r. F arrell an d M r. B lank en sh ip the n ex am ined M rs. C asto r’s drive r’s l i cens e and s t opped ata gas s t at i on t o getdi r ect i ons t o herhous e. T hey ev en tuallyfo u n d it , u sed h er k ey s to g ain e n try , an d ran sac k ed it . M r. B l ankens hi p des cr i bed how he and M r . Farr el l r eturned t o the hous e s ever al t i m es o v e r t h e n e x t th re e d a y s – to s le e p , s h o w e r, a n d s e a rc h fo r v a lu a b le s . M r . Bl a n k e n s h i p a l s o s t a t e d th a th e a n d M r . F a rr e l l h a d s t o l e n g u n s f r o m a gar age a ta di ffe r enthous e. H e s ai d theyl i ved i n R ockfor d, I l l i noi s , and had sto len tw o c a rs a n d h itch h ik e d to re a c h C o lo ra d o . T h e tw o y o u n g m e n c a m e to C o lo ra d o to s e e M r. F a rr e ll’ s fia n c e e . T h e interro g ati o n en d ed at 1:0 9 a.m . B ase d o n the in fo rm ati o n fro m M r. B l ank enship, t he p oli ce dis sem i nated new s bull et i ns and l at er l ocated M rs . C as t or ’ s bodynearol d dam rui ns . T he medi cal exami nerr eport ed thats he had d ie d o f h yp o th e rm ia d u e to e x p o s u re to th e c o ld w e a th e r.

B . T r i al pr ocee di ngs T h e S tate o f

C o lo ra d o c h a rg e d M r. F a rre ll an d M r. B lan k e n sh ip a s a d u lts w i th fi r s t - degr ee mur der , fel onym ur der , ki dnapi ng, r obbery , bur gl ary , cr i m i nal- 7-

tr es pas s , cons pi r acy , and r el at ed count s bas ed on M r s . C as t or ’ s death, the l oot i ng o f h e r h o u se , an d th e g u n s s to len f ro m th e g a ra g e o f

a n o th e r re sid e n c e . T h e S tate tr ie d M r. B la n k e n s h ip fir s t, a n d a ju ry c o n v ic te d h im o n a ll c o u n ts . A tM r . Farr el l ’ s tr i al , M r . B l ankens hi p as s er t ed hi s Fi fth A m endment p ri v il eg e a g ains t sel f-inc ri m ination . M r. F arrell then m o v ed to ex clud e M r. B lan k e n sh ip ’s c u sto d ial s tate m e n t, arg u in g th a t it s u n tes ted in tro d u c tio n w o u ld v iolate th e C o n fro n tat ion C laus e. T h e tri al co u rtfo u n d the s tat em en t aga inst M r. B l ankens hi p’ s penal i nt er es tand ther efor e admi s s i bl e underC ol o. R . E vi d. 804( b) ( 3) . T he courtfur therconcl uded the s t at ementw as s uffi ci ent l yr el i abl e for C o n fro n tat ion C laus e p u rpo ses b ec au se o ther e v iden ce co rrob o rated it . T h e c o u rt r edac t ed ce r t ai n por t i ons of M r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ement , s uch as hi s acc ountof the y oung m en’ s conver s at i on w i th M r s . C as t oras theyw er e r es tr ai ni ng her , as b e in g to o p reju d ic ia l. A t M r. F arrell ’s tri al, the ju rysaw the v ideo tape o f M r. B lank en sh ip’s i nt err ogat i on and al s o r ece i ved a r edac t ed tr ans cr i ptof i t . Sever al otherw i tnes s es t es t i fi ed aboutthe ac t i vi t i es of M r . Farr el l and M r . B l ankens hi p befor e and a ft er M rs . C a s to r’ s d is a p p e a ra n c e . In part i cular , M r. M al do nad o tes t i fi ed thatM r. F arr el l cam e t o h i s hou se per i odi cal l ybetw een N ovember10 and N ovember14. M r . M al donado des cr i bed how the thr ee of

them broke i nt o a gar age w i ndow and s t ol e tw o r i fl e ca s es dur i ng th e n ig h t o f

N o v e m b e r 1 4 . A f

ter th e th re e o f

th e m sto le th e g u n s, th e yw e n t to- 8-

M rs. C asto r’s ho u se. M r. M aldo n ad o test ifi ed that, w h il e the three m en w ere ther e, M r . B l ankens hi p t ol d hi m theyhad for ced M r s . C as t ort o gi ve them a r i de, and l at erpul l ed a gun on he rand putheri n the trunk of hercar . M r . M al donado sai d thatw hen he tol d the y ou ng m en theyw ere goi ng t o b e i n tr ou ble, they“j ust l aughed l i ke, ‘ W e t ook car e of that . I tw on’ thappen. ’ ” St at e C t . R ec, vol . 12, at 4 1 0 . W h il e a t th e h o u se, bo th M r. B lank en sh ip an d M r. F arrell told M r. M aldo n ad o theyh ad left th e lad yin a fiel d , co v ere d w ith roc k s an d b ran ch es. M r. M al donado i ndi cat ed thatbot h M r . Farr el l and M r . B l ankens hi p pr ovi ded the des cr i pt i on att he s ame t i m e, and he thoughtthatthe tw o y oung m en had be en br aggi ng aboutthei ract i ons . M r . M al donado furthert es t i fi ed that , dur i ng the t i m e atM r s . C as t or ’ s hous e, M r . Farr el l appea r ed norm al and w as capa bl e of h a v in g a n o rm a l c o n v e rs a tio n . S h au n V igil test ifi ed that h e h ad sh o p p ed w ith M r. F arrell an d M r. B lan k e n sh ip o n N o v e m b e r 1 5 , 1 9 9 6 . M r. F a rre ll m a d e se v e ra l p u rc h a se s w ith ca sh . M r. V igil test ifi ed that M r. F arrell h ad ac ted n o rm all yw ith n o b izarre behavi or . M r . V i gi l not ed attr i al thatM r . Farr el l and M r . B l ankens hi p had t aken a s ouveni rphot ogr aph of themsel ves thatl ooked l i ke a “ w ant ed pos t er . ” Id . v o l. 1 3 , a t 6 0 4 -0 5 . T h e g o v ern m en t al so intr o d u ce d co n side rab le ph y sical ev iden ce li n k ing M r. Farr el l and M r . B l ankens hi p t o the cr i m es . I n the r oom w her e the tw o y oung m en w er e arr es t ed, offi cer s found M r s . C as t or ’ s carr egi s tr at i ons , i ns ur ance car d, and- 9-

phone ca l l i ng car d. O ffi cer s al s o di s cover ed pl as t i c bags of new cl othi ng i n the att i c atthe r es i dence . W hen arr es t ed, M r . Farr el l w as carry i ng a w al l et c o n ta in in g a p p ro x im a te ly $ 6 0 0 a n d tw o ri n g s . Insid e M rs. C asto r’s car, office rs fo u n d a jac k et co n tai n ing M r. B la n k e n s h ip ’s id e n tific a tio n , M rs . C a s to r’ s w e d d in g ri n g s e t, a n d a n e c k la c e . D et ect i ves fo un d M r. F arr el l ’s fi ng erpr i nts on a do or and w i nd ow of M rs . C asto r’s car, an d o n a sh o p p ing b ag in the tru n k o f h er c ar. A t M rs. C asto r’s r es i dence , offi cer s r ecove r ed M r . Farr el l ’ s fi ngerpr i nt s fr om the fi l i ng cabi netand ups t ai r s bathr oom w i ndow . T hr ee pubi c hai r s fr om the s how erw er e cons i s t ent w ith M r. F arrell ’s ha iran d inco n sist en t w ith tho se o f M r. B lank en sh ip an d M r. M a ld o n a d o . In re sp o n se to th e S tate ’s c a se , M r. F a rre ll as se rte d th a t h e w a s n o t g u ilty byr eas on of i ns ani ty . H e offer ed t es t i m onyfr om tw o ps y chol ogi s t s w ho t es t i fi ed th a t h e su ffe re d f

ro m a m ajo r d e p re ss iv e d iso rd e r w ith p o ss ib le p sy c h o tic features. B ecause the psy chiatri c dis order w as epi sodic, bo th d efen se ps y chol ogi s t s s ai d, theycoul d notconcl us i vel ydet erm i ne w hetherM r . Farr el l w as l egal l ys ane w hen he l eftM r s . C as t ori n the fi el d. I n r ebutt al , the St at e ca l l ed a for ens i c ps y chi atr i s tand a ps y chol ogi s t . T he for ens i c ps y chi atr i s tt es t i fi ed that M r . Farr el l w as m ent al l ys ane dur i ng the offens es . T he ps y chol ogi s tagr eed, stat ing that “[ M r. F arrell ] co u ld u n d erstan d the c o n seq u en ce s o f h is acts an d fo rm i nt entt o do t hi ngs he w ant ed t o do. ” Id. vol . 14, at821. A ddi t i onal l y , the- 10-

p sy c h o lo g ist q u e stio n e d so m e o f M r. F a rre ll’s re sp o n se s to th e p e rso n a litytes ts he had be en admi ni s t er ed:

I concl uded thathe w as m al i nger i ng, bas ed on a numberof th in g s. O n e , [th e re su lts o f a p e rso n a litytes t w e re ] . . . e x a g g e ra ted , in contr as tt o hi s cl i ni cal pr es ent at i on; thatis, how he l ooked t o m e w hen I in ter v iew e d h im a n d h o w h e lo o k e d o n th e u n it.

. . . . T heyw er e i ncongruent . H e di dn’ tl o o k cra zy o r as d iso rg a n ize d a n d h e p re se n ted o n th e [ p e rso n a lity tes t] w h e n I sp o k e to h im fa c e to fa c e a n d a lso w h e n h e w a s o b se rv e d o n th e u n it. S e c o n d ly , tho se d a ta w e re a lso stri[ ]k in g ly in c o n tra st to th e d a ta he gave m e on the R or s chac h. So s i nce I ’ ve done m any of thes e befor e, the conc l us i ons w er e ea s yt o r eac h; and thatw as that[M r . Fa rre l l ] w as e x a g g e ra tin g h is le v e l o f p sy c h o p a th yo r h is c ra z in e ss in o rd e r to g a in so m e se c o n d a ryb e n e fit.

. . . Id. a t 8 1 4 -1 5 . W h e n th e p ro se c u to r a sk e d , “W h a t m ig h t th a t se c o n d a ryb e n e fit b e ? ,” th e p sy c h o lo g ist re sp o n d e d , “[ T ]o a c h iev e so m e k in d o f re d u c tio n in cons equenc es fr om the l egal s y s t em. ” Id . at815. T he jurycon vict ed M r. F arr el l of all of the charged offenses. C . D i r ectappea l T he C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed M r . Farr el l ’ s convi ct i ons , rul i ng thatthe admi s s i on of M r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ementw i thoutcr os s - exami nat i on vi ol at ed M r . Far r el l ’ s r i ght s underthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. S e e Fa rr e ll , 10 P. 3d at676- 77. T he appe l l at e courtexami ned the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Li l l y v. Virg in ia , 527 U . S. 116, 138- 39 ( 1999) and conc l uded thatthe cus t odi al s t at ement w as t oo unr el i abl e t o be i ntr oduced w i thoutcr os s - exami nat i on. T he C ol or ado- 11-

C our tof A ppeal s fur therhel d thatthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e err orw as not h a rm le s s . Fa rr e ll , 10 P. 3d at678. T h e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt re in s ta te d M r. F a rr e ll’ s c o n v ic tio n s . Fa rr e ll , 34 P. 3d at408. I thel d thatM r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ementw as “s uppor t ed by s uffi ci entguar ant ees of trus tw or thi nes s ” and that , as a r es ul t , i t s admi s s i on had n o t v io la te d M r. F a rr e ll’ s C o n f ro n ta tio n C la u s e ri g h ts . Id . I n r eac hi ng that concl us i on, the C ol or ado Supr eme C our ts i gni fi cant l yr el i ed on the fa ct or s i thad i dent i fi ed i n S tev e n s v . P e op le , 29 P. 3d 305 ( C ol o. 2001) . T he courtnot ed that “[i ] n St eve ns , w e obs erved thatt he mosti m por t antfac t ori n eval uat i ng the r el i abi l i tyof the t ender ed s t at ementi s w hetheri tw as genui nel ys el f- i ncul pat or y . ” Fa rr e ll , 34 P. 3d at407. T he courtchar act er i zed M r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ementas “genui nel ys el f- i ncul pat ory , noti nduced bythr eat s , coer ci on, orpr om i s es , and not i nt ended t o s hi ftbl ame t o [M r . Farr el l ] . ” Id . a t 4 0 8 . T h e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt a lso o b se rv e d th a t th e sta tem e n t “m e e ts v a r i o u s o th e rt e s t s w e h a v e i d e n t i fi e d a s b e i n g p e r t i n e n tt o [ th e r e l i a b i l i ty] i nqui ry . ” Id. a t 4 0 7 . In th e c o u rt’s v iew , the sta tem e n t d e sc rib e d th e c rim e s “ a t a l evel of det ai l t hatw oul d be di ffi cul tt o fabr i cat e. ” Id . M o reo v er, M r. B l ankens hi p ( a) m ade the s t at ements oon aft erthe cr i m e, ( b) w as notthr eat ened orcoer ced bythe pol i ce offi cer s w ho i nt err ogat ed hi m , ( c) r ece i ve no offer s of l eni ency , ( d) di d notevi nce a nyi nt entt o r et al i at e aga i ns tM r . Farr el l bys hi ft i ng bl ame t o hi m , ( e) had “pe r s onal know l edge of the eve nt s i n the s t at ement , ” and ( f)- 12-

“w as notundul yagi t at ed w hen he made the s t at ement . ” Id. a t 4 0 7 -0 8 . Forthe s ame r eas ons theys etfor th i n S te v e n s , J us t i ces B enderand M art i nez di s s ent ed. I n thei rvi ew , M r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ementw as not s uffi ci ent l yr el i abl e t o i ns ul at e i tfr om the r equi r ement s of the C onfr ont at i on C la u s e . Id . a t 4 0 8 (B e n d e r, J ., d is s e n tin g ). D . Feder al habea s corpus pr ocee di ngs O n February7, 2003, M r . Farr el l fi l ed a feder al habea s pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2254. T he di s tr i ctcourtappoi nt ed couns el , and M r . Farr el l ’ s amended p e titio n ra is e d o n ly th e C o n f ro n ta tio n C la u s e c la im . A lth o u g h it d isa g re e d w ith th e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt’s a n a ly sis in i m por t antr es pect s , t he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed M r . Farr el l ’ s pet i t i on. T he di s tr i ct c o u rt first h e ld th a t th e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt h a d ru led c o n tra ryto c lea rly estab li sh ed fe d era l l aw w h en itreli ed o n the a p p are n t vo lun tari n ess o f M r. B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ementi n as s es s i ng i t s r el i abi l i ty . H ow ever , on s ubs equentde n o v o re v iew , the d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t o th e r in d ica to rs o f re liab ili ty s uffi ci ent l ys uppor t ed the admi s s i on of M r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ementw i thout cr os s - exami nat i on. I n i t s as s es s m ent , the di s tr i ctcour tdi d notchar act er i ze the pl ur al i tydeci s i on i n Li l l y v. Vi rgi ni a a s c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d fe d e ra l la w . M r. F a rre ll t im e lya p p e a led a n d a p p lied fo r a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty ( CO A) p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d a CO A o n M r. F a rr e ll’ s C o n f ro n ta tio n C la u s e c la im .- 13- I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . St andar d of r evi ew T he pr ovi s i ons of the A nt i - T err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ctof 1 9 9 6 (“ A E D P A ” ) g o v e rn th is a p p e a l. S e e B ro w n v . U p h o ff , 381 F. 3d 1219, 1223 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . T her efor e, w e ca n onl ygr ant§ 2254 r el i ef i f the C ol or ado Supr eme C our t ’ s adj udi cat i on of M r . Farr el l ’ s cl ai m s “r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on t hat 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 fe d e r a l l a w, a s d e t e r mi n e d b yth e S u p r e me Co u r to f t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s . ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2254( d) ( 1) . A s t at e court ’ s adj udi cat i on i s “contr aryt o” cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fede r al l aw i f the s t at e court( 1) “appl i es a rul e thatcontr adi ct s t he governi ng l aw set fo rth in [ S u p rem e C o u rt ] ca ses” o r (2) “c o n fro n ts a set of fa cts th at are m at er i al l yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om a dec i s i on of [the Supr eme] C our tand n e v e rt h e le s s a rr iv e s a s a re s u lt d iffe re n t f ro m ” th e C o u rt ’s re s u lt. Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or , 5 2 9 U .S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 5 -0 6 (2 0 0 0 ). T h e “ u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n ” c lau se is m e t if th e sta te c o u rt “ c o rre c tlyid e n tifie s th e g o v e rn in g leg a l ru le b u t ap p lies it unr eas onabl yt o t he fa ct s of a pa r t i cul arpr i s oner ’ s cas e. ” Id . a t 4 0 7 -0 8 . If w e c o n c lu d e th e sta te c o u rt’s r e a so n in g w a s c o n tra ryto c lea rly es t abl i s hed fe der al l aw , w e do notappl ydefe r ence underA E D PA t o the C ol or ado S u p re m e C o u rt ’s d e c is io n . St eve ns , 4 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 9 ; Br o wn , 3 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 5 . W e ins tead d eterm ine d e n o v o w h ethe r th e a d m issi o n o f M r. B lank en sh ip’s s t at ementvi ol at ed M r . Farr el l ’ s r i ght s t o confr ontw i tnes s es agai ns thi m undert heB eca us e of the s i m i l ar i tyi n i s s ues and couns el , w e cons ol i dat ed St eve ns 2 a n d M r. F a rr e ll’ s a p p e a l fo r o ra l a rg u m e n ts .

- 14- S ix th A m e n d m e n t. Br o wn , 3 8 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 5 . B . C l ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw W e now cons i derw hetherthe C ol or ado Supr eme C our trul ed contr aryt o, or u n rea so n ab lyap p li ed , clea rl yestab li sh ed fe d era l l aw that ex ist ed w h en M r. F a rre ll’s sta te c o n v ictio n s b e c a m e fin a l. Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . at 3 8 1 . T h e sta te courtr ei ns t at ed M r . Far r el l ’ s convi ct i ons on O ct ober22, 2001, and i s s ued a m o d ifi ed en b an c o p inion o n N o v em b er 1 3 , 2 0 0 1 . B ec au se M r. F arrell ’s c o n v ictio n s b e c a m e fin a l b e fo re th e S u p re m e C o u rt issu e d its d e c isio n in C r aw f or d v. Was hi ngt on , 541 U . S. 36 ( 2004) , thatdeci s i on does notappl yt o our r e v i e w o f

M r . F a r r e l l ’ s c l a i m. Br o wn , 381 F. 3d at1227 ( concl udi ng that C r aw f or d “ is n o t r e tr o a c tiv e ly ap p lic a b le ” to c a s e s th e n o n c o lla te ra l r e v ie w ). I n ourr ece ntdeci s i on i n S tev e n s v . O rtiz , 4 6 5 F . 3 d 1 2 2 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), 2 w e des cr i bed the r el evantC onfr ont at i on C l aus e author i tybefor e C raw f ord . We exami ned i n det ai l the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n L ill y v . Virg in ia , 527 U . S. 116 (19 9 9 ), the m o st r ec en t discu ssion o f th e C o n fro n tat ion C laus e b efo re M r. Farr el l ’ s convi ct i ons beca m e fi nal i n N ovember2001. I n St eve ns , w e tr eat ed the Li l l y p lu ra lity o p in io n a s th e h o ld in g o f th e C o u rt . St eve ns , 465 F. 3d at1237 ( ci t i ng Marks v. Uni t ed Stat es , 4 2 0 U .S . 1 8 8 , 1 9 3 (1 9 7 7 )) . T he Li l l y p lu ra lityid e n tifie d se v e ra l fa c to rs o n w h ich c o u rts s h o u ld n o t re ly- 15-

i n as s es s i ng the r el i abi l i tyof an a ccompl i ce’ s hear s ays t at ement : ( 1) the v o lu n ta ri n e s s o f

a n a c c o m p lic e ’s c o n fe s s io n , L ill y , 5 2 7 U .S . at 1 3 8 ; Lee v. Illino is , 476 U . S. 530, 544 ( 1986) ; ( 2) the pr es ence of corr obor at i ng evi dence , L ill y , 5 2 7 U .S . at 1 3 7 -3 8 ; Idaho v Wr ight , 497 U . S. 805, 822 ( 1990) ; ( 3) the a b s e n c e o f

a n o ffe r o f

le n ie n c y , L ill

y , 527 U . S. at138- 39; and ( 4) the pr es ence of s ta te m e n ts s tr o n g ly ag a in s t p e n a l in te re s t, i d. ; Br o wn , 3 8 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 7 n .6 . B. Revi e w of

the Col or a do Sup r e me Court ’ s de c i s i on un de rA ED PA T he C ol or ado Supr eme C our thel d thatM r . B l ankens hi p’ s cus t odi al sta tem e n t to d e tec tiv e s d id “ n o t fa ll i n to a firm lyro o ted h e a rsa ye x c e p tio n , [b u t] it w a s n o n e th e les s s u p p o rte d b ysu fficie n t g u a ra n tee s o f tru stw o rth in e ss to s uppor ti t s admi s s i bi l i tyunderthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. ” Fa rr e ll , 34 P. 3d at 408. I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, M r . Farr el l m ai nt ai ns thatthe s t at e courtrul ed contr aryt o orunr eas onabl yappl i ed cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw w hen i tr el i ed o n the fo ll o w ing fo u r fa ctors in a sses sing the re li ab il ityo f M r. B lank en sh ip’s s t at ement : ( 1) the s t at ement ’ s genui nel ys el f- i ncul pat or ynatur e; ( 2) the s t at ement ’ s vol unt ar i nes s ; ( 3) the exi s t ence of evi dence corr obor at i ng the s ta te m e n t; a n d (4 ) t h e a b s e n c e o f a p ro m is e o f

le n ie n c yto M r. B la n k e n s h ip . Forthe s ame r eas ons s etfor th i n St eve ns , w e c o n c lu d e th a t in so fa r a s it re lied o n th e “ g e n u in e lyse lf-in c u lp a to ry ” n a tu re o f M r. B lan k e n sh ip ’s s tate m e n t, Fa rr e ll , 3 4 F . 3 d at 40 8 , an d the a b sen ce o f a p rom ise o f len ienc yas fac tors i ndi cat i ng t he s t at ement ’ s r el i abi l i ty , the C ol or ado Supr eme C our t ’ s r eas oni ng- 16-

w a s c o n tr a ry to c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d fe d e ra l la w . See Steve ns , 465 F. 3d at1238, 1 2 4 0 ; se e a lso L ill

y , 527 U . S. at138- 39 ( hol di ng thats t at ement s agai ns tpenal i nt er es t“ar e s us pecti ns ofaras theyi ncul pat e otherper s ons ” and that“the abs ence o f a p rom ise o f len ienc yto [ a d ec laran t] d o es n o t enh an ce h is st atem en t’ s re liab ili tyto th e lev e l n e c e ss a ryfo r th e ir u n tes ted a d m iss io n ” ); Br o wn , 381 F. 3d at1227 n. 6 ( i nt erpr et i ng L ill y to c o n c lu d e th a t “th e p re se n c e o f so m e sta tem e n ts a g a in s t p e n a l in te re s t” is n o t a re le v a n t in d ic a to r o f re lia b ility). W e now s epar at el yexami ne the tw o otherfac t or s i nvoked bythe C ol or ado S u p rem e C o u rtan d ch all en g ed b yM r. F arrell

— the v o lun tari n ess o f M r. B l ankens hi p s t at ementand the fa ctthatthe s t at ementw as corr obor at ed byother e v id e n c e . 1. Vol untar i nes s of Mr . B lankens hi

p’s s tat em ent T h e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt re c o g n ize d th a t M r. B lan k e n sh ip p ro v id e d h is sta tem e n t in a c u sto d ial s e tti n g “ a f ter th e p o lice o ffice rs h a d iss u e d B lan k e n sh ip his Mi r anda w arni ngs and i n r es pons e t o s om e l eadi ng ques t i ons . ” Fa rr e ll , 34 P. 3d at407. T he s t at e courtfur therfound i t“[i ] m por t ant [] , how ever , the pol i ce offi cer s di d notthr eat en orcoer ce Bl ankens hi p i n or dert o obt ai n hi s s t at ement . ” Id . M r. F arrell co n tend s tha t th e c o u rtb ase d it s reli ab il ityd eterm ination in p art o n th e a p p a re n t v o lu n ta ri n e s s o f M r. B la n k e n s h ip ’s s ta te m e n t. T he C our ti n Li l l

y con cl ud ed thata declar ant’ s aw areness of hi s Mi r anda rig h ts “ h a s littl e , if a n y , b e a rin g o n th e lik e lih o o d o f tru th f u ln e ss o f

h is- 17-

sta tem e n ts.” 5 2 7 U .S . at 1 3 8 . A lso , the fa c t th a t a c u sto d ial s tate m e n t is vol unt ary“does notbearon the ques t i on of w hetherthe confes s i on w as al s o fr ee f ro m a n yd e sire , m o tiv e , o r im p u lse [ th e d e c lar a n t] m a yh a v e h a d e ith e r to m iti g a te th e a p p e a ra n c e o f h is o w n c u lp a b ili tyb ysp re a d in g th e b lam e o r to o v e rs ta te [ th e d e fe n d a n t’ s ] i n v o lv e m e n t” in th e m u rd e r. Lee , 4 7 6 U .S . a t 5 4 4 . W e agr ee w i th M r . Farr el l thatthe C ol or ado Supr eme C our tcons i der ed the a p p a re n t v o lu n tar in e ss o f M r. B lan k e n sh ip ’s s tate m e n t as b e a rin g o n its truthful nes s , and r el i ance on s uch a fact ori s contr aryt o the r eas oni ng of Li l l y and Lee . S e e Br o wn , 381 F. 3d at1225 ( concl udi ng thata s t at e court ’ s r el i ance on t he vol unt ar i nes s of a de cl ar ant ’ s s t at ementw as contr aryt o Lee ). 2. E vi dence cor r obor at i ng Mr . B lankens hi p’s s tat em ent T h e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt a lso c o n sid e re d it “p e rtin e n t” to its re liab ili ty det erm i nat i on t hatM r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ement“des cr i bes the var i ous cr i m es and s equenc e of e vent s ata l evel of det ai l thatw oul d be di ffi cul tt o fabr i cat e. ” Fa rr e ll , 34 P. 3d at407. T he courtfur thernot ed that“B l ankens hi p pr ovi ded det ai l ed des cr i pt i ons of the eve nt s and conve r s at i ons thatoccurr ed, the su rro u n d in g s a t ea c h sta g e o f th e c rim in a l ep iso d e , an d th e a c tio n s a ttribu tab le to eac h party . ” Id . T he Supr eme C our thas expr es s l ys t at ed thatcorr obor at i ve evi dence cannot b e u s e d to a s s e s s th e re lia b ility a n a c c o m p lic e ’s h e a rs a ys ta te m e n t. S e e L ill y , 527 U . S. at137 ( “Thatotherevi dence attr i al corr obor at ed port i ons of [theW e not e how everthat , i n C raw f ord( i s s u e d a f

t e rt h e Co l o r a d o S u p r e me 3 C o u rt ’s op inion in this ca se), th e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtap p ea rs u n c o n v in c e d th a t th e lev e l o f d e tail in a n o u t-o f-c o u rt sta tem e n t m a ye sta b lish its re lia b ility. See C raw

f ord , 541 U . S. at63 ( not i ng that“[s ] om e court s att ach[ ] t he s ame si gni fi canc e t o oppos i t e fa ct s , ” s uch as hol di ng a more det ai l ed s t at ement m or e r el i abl e ( ci t i ng Fa rr e ll , 34 F. 3d at407) , “w hi l e the Four th C i r cui tfound a stat em en t m o re reli ab le be ca u se th e p o rt ion im p li ca ti n g an o ther w as ‘fleeti n g ’” ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. P ht ogr am m etr i c D ata Ser vs , Inc. , 259 F. 3d 229, 245 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )) .

- 18- d e c lar a n t’s] s tate m e n ts is irre lev a n t.”); Wr ight , 497 U . S. at822 ( r ej ect i ng the ar gum entthatevi dence corr obor at i ng a hea r s ays t at ements uppor t s a fi ndi ng of trus tw or thi nes s ) . M r . Farr el l cont ends thatthe s t at e court ’ s m ent i on of the s t at ement ’ s det ai l s w as es s ent i al l yan i m pr operr el i ance on corr obor at i ng evi dence . W e agr ee w i th M r . Farr el l thata fa nci ful decl ar antcoul d i nfus e a c o n fe ss io n w ith a lev e l o f d e tail th a t w e w o u ld m o re c o m m o n lya ss o c iate w ith s om eone w ho has obs erved the ac tual event s . N onethel es s , w hen the C ol or ado Supr eme C our ti s s ued i t s deci s i on i n M r . Farr el l ’ s cas e, the U ni t ed St at es S up rem e C ou rthad no tcl earl yrej ect ed the l evel of detai l i n a st at em ent as a fa c to r in d ica tin g re liab ili ty . T h e re fo re , the C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt d id n o t ru le contr aryt o Li l l

y o r Wrig h t b yrely ing o n the lev el of d etail in M r. B lank en sh ip’s s ta te m e n t. S e e Br o wn , 381 F. 3d at1228 ( concl udi ng thata di s tr i ctcourtdi d not rul e contr aryt o pr e- L ill y C our tpr ece dentw hen i tnot ed the s t at ement“pr ovi ded a lev e l o f d e tail a b o u t th e c rim e a n d lo c a tio n o f e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld b e d ifficu lt t o fa b ri ca te”). 3- 19-

W e th e re fo re c o n c lu d e th a t th e sta te c o u rt’s r e a so n in g w a s c o n tra ryto cl earl yest abli shed federal l aw byrel y i ng on three i m perm i ssi ble fact ors t o assess the re li ab il ityo f M r. B lank en sh ip’s stat em en t: (1) the g en u inelyself-inc u lpato ry natur e of the s t at ement , ( 2) i t s vol unt ar i nes s , and ( 3) the abs ence of a pr om i s e of le n ie n c y . C. De n o v o r e v i e w Be c a u s e th e Co l o r a d o S u p r e me Co u r t ’ s r e a s o n i n g wa s c o n tr a ryt o S u p r e me C our tpr ece dent , w e now r evi ew de novo w hetherM r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ement con t ai ned suffici ent i nd i ci a of rel i abil i tyt o b e adm i t t ed w i tho ut cr osse x a m in a tio n a t M r. F a rre ll’s tria l. S te v e n s , 465 F. 3d at1239; Br o wn , 381 F. 3d at 1 2 2 7 . In o u r i n d ep en d en t i n q u iryfo r trustw o rth ines s, w e e x am ine M r. B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ement s and the s et t i ng i n w hi ch he w as ques t i oned. L ill y , 527 U .S . a t 1 3 9 . A gai n, ouranal y s i s i s gui ded byourdeci s i on i n S te v e n s . T h e r e , we o b se rv e d th a t “[ c ]o u rts h a v e lo n g re c o g n ize d th a t an a c c o m p lice ’s c o n fe ss io n in pol i ce c us t ody‘ i s pr es um pt i vel yunr el i abl e as t o the pas s ages det ai l i ng the defe ndant ’ s conductorcul pabi l i tybeca us e thos e pas s ages m ayw el l be the pr oductof the code fenda nt ’ s des i r e t o s hi ftors pr ead bl ame, curryfavor , avenge hi m s el f, ordi vertatt ent i on t o another . ’ ” S te v e n s , 465 F. 3d at1241 ( quot i ng Lee , 4 7 6 U . S . at 54 5 ). H er e, M r . B l ankens hi p w as an ac compl i ce w ho w as i nt err ogat ed i n pol i ce- 20-

cus t ody . A s a r es ul t , hi s s t at ement , l i ke the one a ti s s ue i n St eve ns , m us tbe p re s u m e d u n re lia b le . M or eover , l i ke the dec l ar anti n St eve ns , M r . B l ankens hi p at t empt ed t o s hi ft m uch of the bl ame t o the defendant . I n par t i cul ar , nearthe begi nni ng of the i nterrogat i on , M r. B l ank enship st at ed thati tw as M r. F arr el l w ho had do ne m ost o f th e talking w h en the tw o teen ag ers fir st en co u n tered M rs. C asto r. M r. B l ankens hi p eventual l yadmi t t ed dur i ng the i nt err ogat i on thathe had poi nt ed a gun atM r s . C as t orand for ced he ri nt o the trunk of hercar . H ow ever , he m ai nt ai ned thati tw as M r . Farr el l w ho had dr i ven the ca routof t ow n t o the isolated loca ti o n w h ere the tw o teen ag ers ti ed h er u p an d left he r. M o reo v er, acc or di ng t o M r . B l ankens hi p, i tw as M r . Farr el l ’ s i dea t o l eave M r s . C as t or ther e. I n addi t i on, aft eri ni t i al l yi ndi cat i ng thatM r . Farr el l had r i pped up a b la n k e t a n d th a t h e (M r. B la n k e n s h ip ) h a d tie d u p M rs . C a s to r, s ee B lan k e n sh ip T r . at30 ( s t at i ng that“Tony , he [M r . Farr el l ] w as r i ppi ng i tup and I t i ed her u p ”), M r. B lank en sh ip the n stat ed “T o n ym o stl yti ed h er u p b ec au se I w o u ldn ’t getherors om ethi ng, ” Id. a t 3 9 . A l s o, l i ke the dec l ar anti n S te v e n s , M r F a rre ll firs t so u g h t to e x c u lp a te h im s e lf. See St eve ns , 465 F. 3d at1241. A tthe begi nni ng of the i nt err ogat i on, M r . B l ankens hi p deni ed anyr es pons i bi l i tyforM r s . C as t or ’ s abduct i on and m ur der . H e i ndi cat ed thatM r s . C as t orhad l eftherkey s i n hercarand thathe and M r. F arrell an d d ri v en aw ayw ith o u t her. Itw as o n lyaf ter po li ce o fficers- 21-

r eport ed thatM r . Far r el l had s t at ed thatM r s C as t orw as “s om ew her e outi n a fi el d, ” B l ank enship T r. at11 , and that the o nlyw ay“t o g etthat w ei gh toff [his ] s houl der s , ” id . at 2 7 , w a s to h e lp th e p o lice to fin d h e r, th a t M r. B lan k e n sh ip c h a n g e d h is s to ry. I n o u rv i e w, n o n e o f

t h e o th e rfa c t o r s i d e n t i fi e d b yth e Co l o r a d o S u p r e me C our torthe fe der al di s tr i ctcourtar e s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h that“the r el i abi l i tyof M r. [B l ank enship’ s] st at em ent i s so appa rentfrom the record t hat cr ossexami nat i on atM r . [Farr el l ’ s ] t r i al w oul d have be en of onl ym ar gi nal ut i l i ty . ” St eve ns , 4 6 5 F . 3 d at 12 4 3 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T h e fac t th at M r. B lank en sh ip g av e the stat em en t soo n af ter th e c ri m e, rece ived n o ex p ress o ffers of l eni ency , had per s onal know l edge of the eve nt s i n the s t at ement , and w as not undul yagi t at ed w hen he made the s t at ementar e al l i ns uffi ci entt o r ebutthe pr es um ed unr el i abi l i tyof an out - of courts t at ementthatw as gi ven byan acc om pl i ce dur i ng a cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on and thats oughtt o s hi ftbl ame t o a s u b s ta n tia l e x te n t to th e d e fe n d a n t o n tr ia l. See C raw f ord , 541 U . S. at63 ( not i ng that , i n as s es s i ng t he r el i abi l i tyof out - of- courts t at ement s , “[s ] om e court s w i nd up att achi ng the s ame si gni fi canc e t o oppos i t e fa ct s ” and c i t i ng the C ol or ado Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n thi s cas e and i n St eve ns as exampl es : “the C ol or ado Supr eme C our ti n one ca s e found a s t at ementm or e r el i abl e bec aus e i tw as gi ven i m m edi at el yaft ert he eve nt s ati s s ue, . . . w hi l e thats ame cour t , i n anothercas e, found a s t at ementm or e r el i abl e bec aus e tw o y ear s had el aps ed”) ( i nt ernal- 22-

quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . A s i n St eve ns , w e ther efor e conc l ude thatthe sta tem e n t’s a d m iss io n v io late d th e p e tit io n e r’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts to c o n f ro n t th e w itn e s s e s a g a in s t h im . Id. D . H arm l es s E r r or T he vi ol at i on of M r . Far r el l ’ s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e r i ght s w arr ant s habea s r el i ef unde r28 U . S. C . § 2254 onl yi f i thad “a s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous effector i nfl uence i n det erm i ni ng the j ury ’ s ver di ct . ” B r echt , 507 U . S. at623 ( quot i ng Kot t eakos , 328 U . S. at776) . I n under t aki ng thati nqui ry , w e maycons i der“the i m por t ance of the . . . t es t i m onyi n the pr os ecut i on’ s cas e; w hetherthe t es t i m ony w as cumul at i ve; the pr es ence . . . of evi dence corr obor at i ng orcontr adi ct i ng the t es t i m onyof the w i tnes s on m at er i al poi nt s ; the ext entof the ac tual cr os s - exami nat i on ot herw i s e perm i t t ed; and the over al l s tr ength of the pr os ecut i on’ s cas e. ” Jones v. G i bs on , 206 F. 3d 946, 957 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng D e la w a re v . V

a n A rs da ll , 475 U . S. 673, 684 ( 1986) ) . I f w e ar e “i n gr ave doubtas t o the harm l es s nes s of the err or. . . the [ha beas ] pet i t i onerm us tw i n. ” O ’Nealv. McAni nch , 5 1 3 U .S . 4 3 2 , 4 3 7 (1 9 9 5 ). W e e x a m in e th e o u t-o f c o u rt sta tem e n t in l i g h to f th e e n t i r e r e c o r d t o d e t e r m i n e th e e rr o r ’ s p o s s i b l e e ffe c to n th e j u ry. C r es pi n v. New Mexi co , 1 4 4 F . 3 d 6 4 1 , 6 4 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). I n appl y i ng t he B r echtsta n d a rd to th e e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd , w e first n o te thatouri nqui r ydi ffe r s fr om t hatunder t aken bythe C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s on di r ectappea l . T hatcourtw as r equi r ed t o det erm i ne w hetherthe C onfr ont at i on- 23-

C l aus e err orw as harm l es s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . H er e, i ti s the B r echt s ta n d a rd th a t c o n tr o ls . See Her r er a v. Lem as t er , 3 0 1 F . 3 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 7 (10 th C ir . 2002) ( obs ervi ng that“the B r echtst and ard i s l ess s tri ng ent than [t he h arm l ess err ors t andar d s etfor th] i n C hapm an [ v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 18 ( 1967) ] , ” butt hat “i ti s s t i l l ‘ appr opr i at el ydemandi ng’ ”) ( quot i ng B r echt , 5 0 7 U .S . 6 4 1 (S te v e n s , J ., c o n c u rr in g ). H er e, i n ar gui ng thatM r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ementhad “a s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous effectori nfl uence i n det erm i ni ng the j ury ’ s ver di ct , ” B r echt , 50 7 U. S. at 62 3 , M r. F arrell inv o k es th e C o lorad o C o u rto f A p p ea ls’ s o b serv ati o n that M r. B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ementpr ovi ded “the pr i m ary , i f notthe s ol e, evi dence det ai l i ng [M r . Farr el l ’ s ] s peci fi c ac t s and demonstr at i ng hi s m ent al s t at e dur i ng the comm i s s i on of the cr i m es . ” A pl t ’ s B r . at45- 46 ( quot i ng Fa rr e ll , 1 0 P .3 d a t 6 7 8 ). H e a lso o b serv es th at th e p rose cu tor q u o ted o r pa rap h rase d M r. B lank en sh ip’s s ta te m e n t in h is o p e n in g s ta te m e n t a n d h is c lo s in g a rg u m e n t. W e a g ree w ith the C o lorad o C o u rto f A p p ea ls t o so m e e x tent— M r. B lan k e n sh ip ’s s tate m e n t w as the p ri m aryev iden ce d esc ri b ing M r. F arrell ’s s peci fi c ac t s dur i ng t he comm i s s i on of the cr i m es , part i cul ar l ythe abduc t i on and ki l l i ng of M r s . C as t or . N everthel es s , thatfac tdoes notes t abl i s h thatthe admi s s i on of the s t at ementw as pr ej udi ci al underthe B r echts ta n d a rd . T h e p ri m aryissue at tri al w as n o t w h ethe r i t w as M r. F arrell o r M r. B l ank enship w ho com m i t t ed the part i cularact s l eading t o the death of M rs .- 24-

C as t orand the var i ous pr opertycr i m es . T her e w as l i t t l e di s put e thatboth m en, act i ng i n conce r t , abduct ed M r s . C as t or , t i ed herup, l efthert o di e, and then b u rglarized h er h o m e a n d the g ara g e o f a n o ther res iden ce . M o reo v er, th e juro rs r ece i ved an i ns truct i on t hatM r . Farr el l coul d be found gui l tyas a “c om pl i ci t or ” i f ( a) the offens e w as comm i t t ed byanotherper s on; ( b) M r . Farr el l knew thatthe o th e r p e rso n in ten d e d c o m m it th e c rim e ; (c ) M r. F a rre ll h a d “ th e in ten t to pr om ot e orfac i l i t at e the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e; ” and ( d) M r . Farr el l “ai ded, abett ed, advi s ed, orencour aged the otherper s on i n the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e. ” St at e C t . R ec. vol 1, at240, I ns t . 18. R atherthan the r es pect i ve r ol es pl ay ed byM r . Farr el l and M r . B l ankens hi p, th e c e n tr a l is s u e a t tr ia l w a s M r. F a rr e ll’ s m e n ta l s ta te a t th e tim e o f th e c ri m e s . M r . Farr el l cont ended thathe w as notgui l tybyr eas on of i ns ani ty , and the ev iden ce an d arg u m en ts of h is co u n sel co n ce rne d that issue . T h u s, M r. F arrell ’s tw o w i tnes s es w er e both ps y chol ogi s t s w ho di s cus s ed M r . Farr el l ’ s hi s t or yof m ent al heal th di s or der s . H i s couns el ’ s cl os i ng ar gum entdi d notaddr es s the event s s urr oundi ng t he cr i m es atal l . I ns t ead he di s cus s ed M r . Farr el l ’ s tr oubl ed m ent al heal th hi s t ory , cont endi ng thatM r . Farr el l had bee n s ubj ect ed t o abus e for a l ong per i od of t i m e and t el l i ng the j ur ythat“the ul t i m at e dec i s i on aboutw hathe w a s th in k in g a n d h o w h e w a s f u n c tio n in g lies in y o u r h a n d s a n d I a sk y o u to cons i derthathi s t ory . ” Id. vol . 15, at948. O n th a t issu e , M r. B lan k e n sh ip ’s s tate m e n t w a s n o t p a rticu lar ly- 25-

i nform at i ve. W hi l e the expe r tw i tnes s es di s agr eed a boutw hetherM r . Farr el l had a maj orps y chi atr i c di s or derthatpr event ed hi m fr om know i ng r i ghtfr om w r ong o r fro m fo rm ing the in tent to co m m itthe c ri m es a t i ssu e, M r. B lank en sh ip’s s t at ementdi d notdi r ect l yaddr es s thatques t i on. I ndeed, thatfac ti s appar ent f ro m th e e v id e n c e o n w h ich th e e x p e rts re lied in re a c h in g th e ir c o n c lu sio n s. B o th th e p ro se c u tio n ’s a n d th e d e fe n se ’s e x p e rts d isc u ss e d M r. F a rre ll’s p sy c h iatric h isto ry , the p sy c h o lo g ica l tes ts th a t h a d b e e n a d m in iste re d to h im , an d th e ir cli n ical ob serv ati o n s. T h eyd id n o t r elyo n the d etail s p rov ided b yM r. B l ankens hi p. T o be s ur e, M r . Farr el l does poi ntt o one s t at ementbyM r . B l ankens hi p t hat ar guabl yconce r ns M r . Far r r el l ’ s m ent al condi t i on atthe t i m e thathe comm i t t ed the cr i m es . A ccor di ng t o M r . B l ankens hi p, as theyw er e dr i vi ng aw ayfr om the si t e w here theyl eftM rs . C ast or, M r. F arr el l sai d that“[G ]od w i l l get us for this ” and the tw o of them began t o pr ay . Bl a n k e n s h i p T r . a t3 6 . I n M r . F a rr e l l ’ s v i e w, the pr os ecut i on us ed thi s partof the s t at ementt o pr ove i t s cont ent i on thathe k n e w ri g h t f

ro m w ro n g , a n d it th u s p reju d ic e d th e ju ry. A g a in , this a rg u m e n t is u n d e rm in e d b yth e re c o rd a s a w h o le. A s th e S tate o b se rv e s, th e re w a s c o n sid e ra b le o th e r e v id e n c e re b u tti n g M r. F a rre ll’s in sa n ity defe ns e. O ne of the defens e ps y chol ogi s t s t ol d the j urythat , i n r ecount i ng the cri m es, M r. F arr el l had i nd i cat ed thathe h ad p ray ed fo r M rs . C ast or’ s for gi venes s . T hatt es t i m onyt hus pr ovi ded the j uryw i th the s ame i nform at i on- 26-

cont ai ned i n M r . B l ankens hi p’ s acc ount . I n addi t i on, the pr os ecut i on offe r ed t es t i m onyfr om s ever al w i tnes s es w ho encount er ed M r . Farr el l s hor t l ybefor e and s hor t l yaft ert he abduc t i on of M r s . C as t or . L i ke M r . B l ankens hi p, thes e w i tnes s es in d ica ted th a t M r. F a rre ll h a d n o t en g a g e d in a n yu n u su a l b e h a v io r th a t w o u ld i ndi cat e thathe di d notknow r i ghtfr om w r ong orthathe w as i ncapa bl e of fo rm ing the in tent to co m m itthe c h arg ed o ffen ses. A p art fro m M r. B lank en sh ip’s s t at ement , the pr os ecut i on pr es ent ed ampl e evi dence s uppor t i ng i t s theorythat M r. F a rr e ll w a s n o t in s a n e . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e err orcaus ed byt he admi s s i on of M r . B l ankens hi p’ s s t at ementdi d nothave “ a s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous effectori nfl uence i n det erm i ni ng the j ury ’ s ver di ct . ” B r echt , 50 7 U. S. at623 ( quot i ng Kot t eakos , 3 2 3 U . S . at 77 6 ). I I CO NC L US I ON F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tfo r th i n th i s o r d e ra n d j u d g me n t , we th e r e fo r e AFF I RM the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er d en y ing M r. F arrell ’s 28 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 p eti ti o n fo r a w ri tof h abeas co rpus. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge