T he H onor abl e J udi t h C . H err er a, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe D i s t r i ctof * N ew M exi co, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 13, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
LYN N LEE, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 04- 8116 B R E N T C R O U SE , W ar den, C r ow l ey Co u n tyCo r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y ; R. O. L A M PE R T , D i r ect or , W y om i ng De p a r t me n to f

Co r r e c t i o n s ; P ATRI CK C R A N K , W y o m in g A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees.

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF W YOM I NG ( D. C. No. 0 3 - CV - 1 1 1 - W FD ) Sean C . C hamber s , StudentD i r ect or( D i ane E. C our s el l e, D i r ect or , w i t h hi m on t he br i efs ) , D efe nderA i d Pr ogr am, U ni ver s i t yof W y om i ng, C ol l ege of L aw , L ar ami e, W y o m in g , fo r P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t. D avi d L . D el i cath, Seni orA s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al ( Patr i ck J . C r ank, W y om i ng A t t orneyG eneral , w i t h h i m on t he b ri ef), C hey enn e, W y om i ng , for R espon den t sA pp el l ees. B efor e BRI S CO E and HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udges , and HERR ER A, D i s t r i ctJ udge *-2-

BRI S CO E, C i r cui tJ udge Pet i t i onerL ynn L ee, a W y om i ng s t at e pr i s onerconvi ct ed of tw o count s of s exual as s aul ti n the thi r d degr ee a nd s ent ence d t o cons ecut i ve t erm s of i m pr i s onm ent , s ought fe d era l hab ea s reli ef

p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 fro m h is sen tenc es. T h e d istri ct co u rt d en ied re li ef

, b u t gran ted L ee a c erti fica te of ap p ea labili ty(C O A ) w ith resp ec t t o L ee ’s c l a i m th a tt h e s t a t e t r i a l c o u r tv i o l a t e d h i s p r i v i l e g e a g a i n s ts e l f - i n c r i mi n a t i o n a tth e t i me of s ent enci ng. L ee now chal l enges the mer i t s of thatrul i ng on appea l . L ee a l s o s eeks an ex p an d ed ce rt ifi ca te of

ap p ea labili ty(C O A ) i n o rde r t o ch all en g e the d istri ct co u rt ’s ru l i n g o n d o u b l e j e o p a r d ya n d d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m s th a th e r a i s e d i n h i s p e t i t i o n . We exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, aff i r m the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of fede r al habea s r el i ef on the s el f- i ncr i m i nat i on cl ai m , and denyL ee’ s r eques tforan e x p a n d e d CO A. I. O n February11, 2000, L ee w as arr es t ed and c har ged byi nform at i on i n W y om i ng s t at e courtw i t h fi ve cr i m i nal count s ar i s i ng outof hi s s exual act i vi t i es w i t h s ever al m i nor m al es overa per i od of y ear s . I n per t i nentpart , C ount s 3 and 5 of the i nform at i on char ged L ee w i th s exual as s aul ti n t he thi r d degr ee i n vi ol at i on of W y om i ng St atut es A nnot at ed §§ 6- 2- 304( a) ( I ) , 6- 2- 306, and 6- 10- 102. A pp. at7. C ount3 al l eged “ t hatbetw een M ar ch 21, 1994 and Sept ember21, 1995, ” Lee “i nfl i ct ed s exual i ntrus i on on a vi ct i m , w hen at the tim e [ the v ict im ] w as less th an 1 6 y ea rs of ag e a n d [L ee ] w [a s] at l ea st fo u r y ea rs-3-

ol derthan [the vi ct i m ] . ” A pp. at41. C ount5 “al l eged thatbetw een O ct ober4, 1996 and D ece m ber31, 1998, ” Lee “di d unl aw ful l yi nfl i cts exual i ntrus i on on a vi ct i m w hen the vi ct i m w as l es s than 16 and [ L ee] w [as ] atl eas tfoury ear s ol der. . . . ” I d. at41- 42. L e e su b se q u e n tlye n ter e d in to a p lea a g re e m e n t w ith th e p ro se c u tio n , p u rsu a n t to w h ich h e a g ree d to p lead g u il tyto C o u n ts 3 a n d 5 in ex ch an g e f o r th e p rose cu ti o n ’s agr eementt o di s m i s s t he r emai ni ng count s . I n t he cour s e of a cce pt i ng L ee’ s gui l t ypl ea, the tr i al cour tas ked Lee aboutt he det ai l s of the tw o cr i m es t o w hi ch he w as pl eadi ng g u ilty . W ith re sp e c t to C o u n t 3 , L e e a d m itt e d th a t th e c rim e o c c u rre d “ [ a ]p p ro x im a tely b e tw e e n J u n e a n d S e p te m b e r o f ‘9 5 a t [ h is ] h o u s e . . . in G ille tte ,” W y o m in g . Id . a t 6 6 . W i th r es pectt o C ount5, L ee a dm i t t ed that“betw een O ct ober4, 1996 and D ece m ber31, 1998, ” he “ per form ed or al s ex w i t h” a mi norvi ct i m . I d. at52. W hen as ked bythe tr i al cour ti f he c oul d i ndi cat e “mor e def i ni t el y. . . w hen the[] event s occurr ed, ” he i ndi cat ed he coul d not . I d. at73. L ee di d i ndi cat e, how ever , thathe had s exual cont actw i t h t he vi ct i m al l eged i n C ount5 on “[t ] hr ee orfour ” occ as i ons . I d. at76. F o llo w in g th e e n tryo f

L e e ’s g u iltyp lea , the p ro se c u tio n m o v e d to c o m p e l L e e to s ubm i tt o a ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on. A ft erconduct i ng a hea r i ng on t he mot i on, the tr i al cour thel d i tcoul d notcompel L ee t o s ubm i tt o s uch an e val uat i on. T he tr i al courts ent ence d L ee on M ay24, 2000. D ur i ng the s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he pr os ecut i on pr es ent ed t es t i m onyfr om W i l l i am H ei neke, a l i cens ed pr ofes s i onal couns el or w i th expert i s e “i n t he ar ea of i nappr opr i at e s exual act i vi t ybetw een mi nor s and adul t s . ” I d. at130. H ei neke opi ned, bas ed upon hi s r evi ew of the ca s e, thatL ee w as “i n a hi gh-4-

r i s k cat egory ” i n t erm s of l i kel i hood of r eci di vi s m . I d. at134. H ei neke f ur t heropi ned th a t L e e h a d a n a rc iss istic p e rso n a lityd iso rd e r, id . at 1 4 4 , an d p re se n ted a “ [ h ]ig h risk ” to “pos tpr epubes centm i nor s . ” I d. at146. A tthe conc l us i on of the evi dence , L ee’ s couns el ar gued that“Lee [w a] s amenabl e t o t r eatm ent ” or“r ehabi l i t at i on . . . . ” I d. at159. T he tr i al cour ts t at ed, i n r es pons e: “H ow w oul d I know that ? H e’ s nots ubm i t t ed t o anyki nd o f e v a lu a tio n . I ca n ’t tak e th a t o n f a ith .” Id . L e e ’s c o u n se l th e n a rg u e d : “C o rre c t, bu t I thi nk y ou al s o s houl d nott ake the fa ctthathe di d nots ubm i tt o an eva l uat i on t o t he fa ct that’ s he’s no tam enab l e t o tr eat m ent orw i l l i ng t o d o that . * * * [T ]he factthat he cho se nott o s ubm i thi m s el f t o an eva l uat i on does notm ean thathe’ s notamenabl e t o t r eatm ent o r th at he w o u ld n o t coo p era te w ith that. ” Id . at 15 9 -60 . L ater, w h en the tri al co u rt a n n o u n c e d its se n ten c e , itsta ted : E ar l yon t her e w as a r eques tthaty ou [Lee] s ubm i tt o an eva l uat i on by the S t at e. T he S t at e request ed thaty ou do that. I r eview ed the preceden [t s] fr om t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tand conc l uded I coul dn’ tr equi r e y ou to d o th a t, bu t th a t I c o u ld d ra w a d v e rse in f e re n c e s f ro m y o u r f

a ilu re to p a rticip a te in th a t. * * * Y ou m i ghtbe amenabl e t o tr eatm ent , butI don’ tknow and I ’ m notgoi ng t o t ake i ton fai t h. A ccor di ngl y , I s ee mydutyas one of t o keep y ou iso late d f ro m p o ten tial v ictim s f

o r a s lo n g o f

p e rio d a s I c a n d o th a t. I t ’ s t he s ent ence of the C our tthaty ou’ l l be i ncar cer at ed on ea ch count fora per i od of notl es s t han 12 norm or e than [15] y ear s . T he s ent ence s w i l l ru n c o n s e c u t i v e l y. I d. at161- 62. A ft erannounci ng t he s ent ence s , the tr i al cour tthen s t at ed t o L ee: N ow , w hen y ou pl ed gui l t yI expl ai ned t o y ou thaty ou gave up y our r i ghtt o appea l fr om a l egal s ent ence . I have, how ever , dr aw n i nfer ence s fr om y ourfai l ur e t o cooper at e i n t he eva l uat i on pr oces s . T hat ’ s an i s s ue w h ich y o u m a yw a n t to a p p e a l to th e S u p re m e C o u rt. Y o u c a n d isc u ss itT he evi dence cons i s t ed of t es t i m onyfr om W i l l i am E l ger , a pol i ce of fi cerw i th t he 1 C i tyof G i l l ett e, W y om i ng, w ho t es t i fi ed thathe s poke t o t he vi ct i m s of Lee’ s cr i m es and theyind icated an incid en t of sex u al assa u lth ad o cc u rred in the fa ll o f 1 9 9 7 at L ee ’s hom e. A pp. at308- 09. A s not ed bythe di s t r i ctcour t , E l ger ’ s “t es t i m onyw as verybr i ef .

. . .” A p p . at 3 7 4 . T h e d istric t co u rt f u rth e r c o n c lu d e d th a t E lg e r’s tes tim o n y“ sim p ly r epea t ed i nform at i on pr ovi ded i n t he af fi davi tof pr obabl e ca us e and the PSI [pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on] r epor tw hi ch i ndi cat ed the s exual as s aul tof [the vi ct i m i n C ount5] occurr ed af

t erJ ul y1, 1997. ” I d. -5- w i th y ourat t or ney . I t ’ s one thatw oul d be a pe r m i s s i bl e appe al even though y o u p le d g u ilty. Y o u s h o u ld d is c u s s th a t w ith [ y o u r a tto rn e y .] I d. at164. O n M ay30, 2000, s i x day s aft erthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, the pr os ecut i on fi l ed a m ot i on t o corr ecti l l egal s ent ence as t o C ount3. T he mot i on w as bas ed on the pr os ecut i on’ s r eal i zat i on t hatt he off ens e cha r ged i n C ount3 occurr ed i n 1995 w hen the m axi m um penal t ys peci fi ed underW y om i ng l aw fors exual as s aul ti n t he thi r d degr ee w as fi ve y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . I n ot herw or ds , the pr os ecut i on’ s m ot i on as s ert ed thatL ee had bee n i l l egal l ys ent ence d undera 1997 s ent enci ng pr ovi s i on thatw as har s herthan the one i n pl ace att he t i m e the cr i m e w as comm i tt ed. T he tr i al courthel d t w o hear i ngs on t he pr os ecut i on’ s m ot i on. D ur i ng the s econd s uch hea r i ng, t he tr i al courtperm i t t ed the pr os ecut i on t o “s uppl ementthe r ecor d on the fac tual bas i s w i t h r es pectt o C ount5” i n or dert o es t abl i s h t hatthe ac t s under l y i ng C ount 5 occurr ed af

t erJ ul y1, 1997, w hen the W y om i ng l egi s l atur e i ncr eas ed the maxi m um penal tyfors exual as s aul ti n t he thi r d degr ee f r om fi ve t o fi ft een y ear s . I d. at305. A tt he 1 concl us i on of the s econd he ar i ng, t he tr i al cour tr es ent ence d L ee t o a t erm of im p riso n m e n t o f

f if ty -f o u r to six tym o n th s o n C o u n t 3 , the m a x im u m se n ten c e a v a ilab leT he W y om i ng Supr eme C our tdi d r ever s e and r emand t he ca s e t o t he s t at e di s tr i ct 2 cour tforthe l i m i t ed purpos e of r ei ns t at i ng the cr edi tfort i m e s erved w hi ch had be en gr ant ed i n t he or i gi nal s ent ence butom i t t ed fr om the amended s ent ence . -6- underW y om i ng l aw att he t i m e Lee comm i t t ed the ac t s under l y i ng C ount3. T he tr i al c o u r ta g a i n o r d e r e d t h a tt h e s e n t e n c e s o n C o u n t s 3 a n d 5 w o u l d ru n c o n s e c u t i v e l y. L ee a ppeal ed t o t he W y om i ng Supr eme C our tof W y om i ng, ar gui ng, i n per t i nent part , that“[t ] he tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on” atthe t i m e of s ent enci ng w hen i t“form ed adver s e i nfer ence s agai ns t[hi m ] fori nvoki ng hi s Fi fth A m endmentr i ghtagai ns ts el fi ncr i m i nat i on. ” I d. at171. I n s uppor tof thatar gum ent , L ee a s s ert ed thati f he ha d

“ p a rticip a ted in th e [ p sy c h o lo g ica l] e v a lu a tio n , h e lik e lyw o u ld h a v e b e e n c a lled u p o n to p ro v id e in f

o rm a tio n th a t c o u ld [ h a v e ] b e [ e n ] u s e d a g a in s t h im a t s e n te n c in g .” Id . a t 1 8 2 . T hus , L ee a r gued, he “ha d a Fi fth A m endmentr i ghtt o r efus e t o s ubm i thi m s el f t o s uch a pot ent i al l yi ncr i m i nat i ng ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on. ” I d. I n turn, L ee a s s ert ed, the tr i al cour t“over s t epped [ i t s ] di s cr et i onarybounds w hen [i t ] eff ect i vel yt ook t hi s r i ghtaw ay f ro m ” h im b yd ra w in g a n a d v e rs e in f e re n c e f ro m h is re f

u s a l to s u b m it to a n e v a lu a tio n . I d. I n a s epar at e ar gum ent , L ee a l s o as s ert ed thatthe tr i al cour terr ed i n al l ow i ng the pr os ecut i on t o s uppl ementt he r ecor d i n or dert o j us t i fythe s ent ence i m pos ed w i t h r es pect t o C ount5. M or e s peci fi cal l y , L ee a r gued thatthi s pr ocedur e “r ai s ed a doubl e j eopar dy i s s ue. ” I d. at267. T he W y om i ng Supr eme C our taff i r m ed Lee’ s s ent ence s on D ece m ber17, 2001. 2 L ee v . S tat e, 36 P . 3 d 1 1 3 3 (W y o . 2 0 0 1 ). In d o ing so , the W y o m ing S u p rem e C o u rt co n clud ed the tri al co u rtac ted p rop erlyin co n side ri n g , fo r pu rpo ses o f se n tenc ing , L ee ’s-7-

r e f u s a l t o s u b mi tt o a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n . I d . a t2 6 8 - 6 9 . Th e W y o mi n g S u p r e me C our tal s o concl uded ther e w as no doubl e j eopar dyvi ol at i on ar i s i ng outof the tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o al l ow t he pr os ecut i on t o pr ovi de s uppl ement al evi dence r egar di ng C o u n t 5 f

o r p u rp o se s o f

se n ten c in g , n o tin g th a t “th e . . . ca se p re se n t[ e d ] n e ith e r m u lti p le p ro s e c u tio n s n o r m u ltip le p u n is h m e n ts f o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e .” Id . a t 2 6 8 . L ee then fi l ed hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on cl ai m i ng ( 1) the s t at e tr i al cour tvi ol at ed hi s pr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el f- i ncr i m i nat i on bydr aw i ng an adve r s e i nfer ence fr om hi s r efus al t o par t i ci pat e i n a court - or der ed ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on, ( 2) the pr os ecut i on vi ol at ed the c o n stitu tio n a l p ro h ib iti o n a g a in st d o u b le je o p a rd yb ysu p p lem e n tin g th e re c o rd a f ter h is o rig in a l se n ten c in g h e a rin g , an d (3 ) h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w e re v io late d b e c a u se th e d a te of the off

ens e under l y i ng C ount5 w as notes t abl i s hed bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed r el i ef a nd di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on, butgr ant ed Lee a CO A w i t h r es pect to th e s e lf

-i n c ri m in a tio n is s u e . II.

A . S E L F- I NC R I MI NA T ION L e e c o n ten d s th e trial c o u rt e f f e c tiv e lyp e n a lize d h im f o r e x e rc isin g h is F if

th A m endmentpr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el f- i ncr i m i nat i on and r efus i ng t o s ubm i tt o a ps y chol ogi cal e v a lu a tio n b yd ra w in g a n a d v e rs e in f e re n c e f ro m th a t r e f

u s a l a t th e tim e o f

s e n te n c in g . L ee firstraised this i ssu e d u ri n g the h ea ri n g o n the p rose cu ti o n ’s m o ti o n fo r a ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on, ar gui ng t hatthe Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n M i t chel l v. U ni t ed St at es , 526 U . S. 314 ( 1999) , “pr event ed the [tr i al ] cour tfr om or der i ng an as s es s m entand,-8-

ther efor e, i m pl i ci t l yt hatpr ece dental s o pr event ed the courtfr om dr aw i ng a nega t i ve i nfer ence fr om hi s r efus al t o under go s uch an a s s es s m ent . ” Lee, 36 P. 3d at1141. T he tr i al cour t“di s t i ngui s hed M i t chel l fr om [Lee’ s ] s i tuat i on beca us e thatcas e i nvol ved an at t empt t o for ce a defe ndant , w ho had pl eade d gui l t y , t o t es t i fyr egar di ng cert ai n fac t s of the cr i m e w i t h w hi ch s he w as char ged. ” I d. H avi ng s o rul ed, the tr i al cour tthen expr es s l yi ndi cat ed i tw as dr aw i ng an adve r s e i nfer ence fr om L ee’ s r efus al t o s ubm i tt o a ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on. A l t hough i ti s notent i r el ycl earfr om the tr ans cr i ptof the s ent enci ng hear i ng, i tappea r s t he tr i al cour ti nferr ed fr om L ee’ s r efus al thathe w as not “amenabl e t o t r eatm ent , ” and i n tur n concl uded i tneede d “t o keep [ L ee] i s ol at ed fr om p o ten tial v ictim s f

o r a s lo n g o f

p e rio d ” a s p o ss ib le. A p p . at 1 6 2 . In o th e r w o rd s, it appea r s t hatL ee’ s s i l ence r es ul t ed i n t he tr i al cour tdecl i ni ng t o r educe L ee’ s s ent ence s on th e g ro u n d s o f

a m e n a b ility to tr e a tm e n t. L ee r eas s er t ed the Fi fth A m endmenti s s ue on di r ectappea l . T he W y om i ng S u p rem e C o u rt , af

ter brieflyd iscu ssing the f ac ts an d h o lding o f M it ch ell , rejected L ee ’s c l a i m: [T]he [tr i al ] courti s m andat ed t o gatherand cons i dercert ai n i nform at i on pr i ort o s ent enci ng. W . R . C r . P. 32( a) r equi r es a PSI be done i n everyfel ony case and a reportbe sub m i t t ed to the d i stri ctcou rt . T hat r epo rtm ust cont ai n, among ot herfac t s , “[i ] nform at i on aboutthe hi s t oryand char act er i s t i cs of the def endant , i ncl udi ng . . . anyci r cumst ance s aff ect i ng th e d e f e n d a n t’ s b e h a v io r t h a t m a yb e h e lp f u l in im p o s in g s e n te n c e ,” W . R . C r . P. 32( a) ( 2) ( A ) , as w el l as “[s ] uch otheri nform at i on as m aybe r equi r ed byt he court . ” W . R . C r . P. 32( a) ( 2) ( D ) . T hi s cour thas appr oved the u se o f p sy c h o lo g ica l as se ss m e n ts, su c h a s th e o n e re q u e ste d in th is c a se , in th e se n ten c in g o f

se x o f f e n d e rs. (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h e d istric t co u rt in th is cas e s oughtt he as s es s m entt o “ai d t he courti n det erm i ni ng w hetherornot-9-

[M r . L ee] pr es ent s a dange rt o other s . ” W e have appr oved of s uch c o n s id e ra tio n s in th e c o u rs e o f s e n te n c in g . (c ita tio n o m itte d ). A d ef en d an t’ s fa il u re to c o o p era te i n the P S I i s ce rt ainlya v ali d fa ctor f o r a tr i a l c o u r tt o c o n s i d e ri n c o n t e mp l a t i n g th e a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e . As we have s ai d, s ent enci ng r equi r es cons i der at i on of the ci r cumst ance s s u rr o u n d in g th e c ri m e a n d th e c h a ra c te r o f th e c ri m in a l. ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). T h is r ec o rd re flec ted s u b stan ti al ev iden ce that su p p o rt ed the [ tr ial ] co u rt ’s i m pos i t i on of the maxi m um s ent ence al l ow ed bys t atut e, i ncl udi ng the t es t i m onyof thr ee vi ct i m s w ho w er e gr oom ed forexpl oi t at i on byM r . L ee, the unr efut ed t es t i m onyof a s t at e ps y chol ogi s tw ho r evi ew ed al l the i nform at i on and conc l uded M r . L ee pr es ent ed a c ont i nui ng r i s k t o t he comm uni t y , and M r . L ee’ s ow n s t at ementof hi s gui l t . H ad M r . L ee cons ent ed t o t he as s es s m ent , i tm i ghthave pr ovi ded i nform at i on thathe w as a m e n a b le to tre a tm e n t an d su p p o rte d a les se r se n ten c e . It w a s h is rig h t to r efus e the as s es s m entand the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r i ghtt o cons i ders uch r efus al i n det erm i ni ng t he appr opr i at e s ent ence . I d. B eca us e Lee does notcont end the W y om i ng Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i nvol ved an “unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s , ” s ee 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ( 2) , the onl yw ayhe ca n o b tai n fe d era l hab ea s reli ef is t o estab li sh that the W y o m ing S u p rem e C o u rt ’s adj udi cat i on of hi s s el f- i ncr i m i nat i on cl ai m “r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as contr aryt o, or i 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 byt he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ( 1) . T o es t abl i s h t hat the W y om i ng Supr eme C our t ’ s adj udi cat i on w as “contr aryt o” cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw , L ee mustdemonstr at e thatt he W y om i ng Supr eme C our t“arr i ve[d] ata conc l us i on oppos i t e t o t hatr eac hed by[the Supr eme] C our ton a ques t i on of l aw , ” or“dec i de[d] [the] c a se d if f e re n tlyth a n [ th e S u p re m e ] C o u rt h a s o n a se t o f m a ter iallyin d istin g u ish a b le fac t s . ” W i l l i ams v. T ay l or , 529 U . S. 362, 413 ( 2000) . T o es t abl i s h thatthe W y om i ng-10-

S u p re m e C o u rt’s a d

ju d ica tio n in v o lv e d a n “ u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f ” c lea rly estab li sh ed fe d era l l aw , L ee m u st de m o n str ate tha t th e W y o m ing S u p rem e C o u rt “i dent i fi e[d] t he corr ectgoverni ng l egal pr i nci pl e fr om [the Supr eme] C our t ’ s deci s i ons b u t u n re a s o n a b ly ap p lie [ d ] t h is p ri n c ip le to th e f a c ts ” o f h is c a s e . Id . L ee a s s ert s t hatt he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i ons i n M i t chel l , E s t el l e v. Sm i t h, 451 U . S. 454 ( 1981) , and G r i ffi n v. C al i forni a, 380 U . S. 609 ( 1965) , “pr ovi de the cl earrul es w h ich g o v e rn th is c a se .” A p lt. B r. at 1 6 . In G rif f in , the C o u rt h e ld “ th a t th e F if th A m endment , i n i t s di r ectappl i cat i on t o t he Feder al G overnm ent , and i n i t s bear i ng on t he St at es byr eas on of the Four t eenth A m endment , forbi ds ei t hercomm entbythe p ro se c u tio n o n th e a c c u se d ’s s ilen c e o r in stru c tio n s b yth e c o u rt th a t su c h sile n c e is e v id e n c e o f

g u ilt .” 3 8 0 U .S . at 6 1 5 . E ste lle a n d M itch e ll ex ten d e d th a t ru lin g to c e rta in c rim in a l se n ten c in g c o n tex ts. E ste lle in v o lv e d a f e d e ra l h a b e a s p e tit io n f iled b ya sta te capi t al defe ndantw ho had bee n s ubj ect ed t o a pr e- t r i al ps y chi atr i c exa m i nat i on i n or der t o det erm i ne hi s compet ence t o s t and tr i al . T he ps y chi atr i s ts ubs equent l yt es t i fi ed att he s ent enci ng phas e of the def endant ’ s tr i al and opi ned “on the cruci al i s s ue of [ t he defe ndant ’ s ] futur e dange r ous nes s . . . . ” 451 U . S. at467. T he Supr eme C our tconcl uded thatthe ps y chi atr i s t ’ s t es t i m onyvi ol at ed the def endant ’ s Fi fth A m endmentpr i vi l ege a g a in st c o m p e lled se lf

-in c rim in a tio n . In d o in g so , the S u p re m e C o u rt, i n a d d iti o n to hol di ng t he Fi fth A m endmentpr i vi l ege appl i cabl e t o t he s ent enci ng phas e of a capi t al tr i al and t o s t at ement s ut t er ed i n t he cont extof a ps y chi atr i c exa m i nat i on, emphasi zed that a def endant ’ s Fi fth A m endmentr i ghtagai ns ts el f- i ncr i m i nat i on “i s ful fi l l ed onl yw hen a-11-

c rim in a l d e f

e n d a n t is g u a ra n tee d th e rig h t to re m a in sile n t u n les s h e c h o o se s to sp e a k in the unfe t t er ed exe r ci s e of hi s ow n w i l l , and t o s uffe rno penal t y. . . fors uch s i l ence . ” I d. a t 4 6 8 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). M itch e ll i n v o lv e d a f

e d e ra l cr im in a l d e f

e n d a n t w h o p led g u iltyto c o n sp irin g to di s tr i but e coc ai ne and thr ee c ount s of di s t r i but i ng coca i ne w i t hi n one thous and fe etof a s chool orpl ay gr ound. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, the governm entpr es ent ed a va r i etyof evi dence conce r ni ng t he amountof coc ai ne thatthe def endanthad di s t r i but ed, i ncl udi ng t es t i m onyfr om thr ee of t he def endant ’ s co- cons pi r at or s . T he di s t r i ctcour t , aft erhear i ng the governm ent ’ s evi dence , “rul ed that , as a cons equenc e of he rgui l t ypl ea, [the defe ndant ] had no r i ghtt o r emai n s i l entw i t h r es pectt o t he det ai l s of hercr i m es . ” 526 U . S . a t3 1 9 . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h i s ru l i n g , th e d e f e n d a n tr e f

u s e d t o t e s t i f

y. A c c o r d i n g l y, th e d istric t co u rt re lied o n th e tes tim o n yo f th e d e f e n d a n t’s c o -c o n sp ira to rs a n d e x p re ss ly s t at ed on the r ecor d t hati t“hel d i tagai ns t[the def endant ] that[s he] di dn’ tcome for w ar d” and t es t i fy . I d. A ft erhers ent ence w as aff i r m ed bythe Thi r d C i r cui t , the def endant s oughtand w as gr ant ed r evi ew byt he Supr eme C our t . T he C our t , i n a 5- 4 deci s i on, r ever s ed and r emanded t he ca s e. I n doi ng s o, the C our thel d t hat( 1) a gui l t ypl ea doe s notr es ul ti n a w ai verof the Fi fth A m endmentpr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el f- i ncr i m i nat i on i n the s ent enci ng phas e of the ca s e, and ( 2) “i n det erm i ni ng fac t s aboutthe cr i m e w hi ch bea r upon the s ever i t yof the s ent ence , ” i ti s i m perm i s s i bl e fora tr i al cour tt o “dr aw n an adver s e i nfer ence fr om t he def endant ’ s s i l ence . ” I d. at316- 17. W i t h r es pectt o t hi s l att er hol di ng, the C our tnot ed that“[t ] he norm al rul e i n a cr i m i nal cas e i s thatno negat i ve-12-

i nfer ence fr om the def

endant ’ s fai l ur e t o t es t i fyi s perm i t t ed, ” and i t“dec l i ne[d] t o adopt an exc ept i on fort he s ent enci ng phas e of a cr i m i nal cas e w i t h r egar d t o fac tual det erm i nat i ons r es pect i ng t he ci r cumst ance s and det ai l s of the cr i m e. ” I d. at327- 28. T he C ou rtno t ed that“[t ]he G ov ernm ent oft en h as a m oti ve to dem and a severe sent ence, s o the ce ntr al purpos e of the pr i vi l ege–t o pr ot ecta def endantfr om bei ng the unw i l l i ng instrum en t of

h is or h er o w n co n d em n ati o n – rem ains o f v it al i m p o rt an ce . ” Id . at 32 9 . In cl os i ng, the C our ts t at ed: T he G overnm entr et ai ns t he bur den of pr ovi ng fac t s r el evantt o t he cr i m e at the s ent enci ng phas e and c annotenl i s tthe def endanti n t hi s pr oces s atthe expens e of the s el f- i ncr i m i nat i on pr i vi l ege. W hethers i l ence bear s upon t he det erm i nat i on of a l ack of r emors e, orupon acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yfor purpos es of the dow nw ar d adj us t m entpr ovi ded i n § 3E 1. 1 of the U ni t ed S tat es S en tenc ing G u idelines (19 9 8 ), is a sep ara te qu esti o n . Itis no t bef o re u s, a n d w e e x p re ss n o v iew o n it. I d. at330. T h e f o u r d iss e n tin g ju stic e s in M itch e ll critic ize d th e m a jo rity ’s h o ld in g a n d its r efus al t o addr es s w hetheri t s hol di ng appl i ed t o s i tuat i ons ot herthan w her e a s ent enci ng cour tw as “det erm i ni ng t he fa ct s of the off ens e”: W h ich b rin g s [ u s] to th e g re a tes t– th e m o st b iza rre – in c o n sis ten c yo f a ll: the combi nat i on of the rul e thatthe C our tadopt s t odayw i t h t he bal ance of o u r ju risp ru d e n c e re latin g to se n ten c in g in p a rticu lar . “[ C ]o u rts in th is countr yand i n E ngl and, ” w e have s ai d, have “ pr act i ced a pol i cyunder w hi ch a s ent enci ng j udge [c an] exer ci s e a w i de di s cr et i on i n t he s our ces and types of evi dence us ed t o as s i s thi m i n det erm i ni ng the ki nd and ext entof p u n is h m e n t to b e im p o s e d w ith in lim its f ix e d b yla w .” (c ita tio n o m itte d ). “ [ A ] se n ten c in g ju d g e ‘m a ya p p ro p ria telyc o n d u c t an in q u iryb ro a d in s cope, l ar gel yunl i m i t ed ei t heras t o t he ki nd of i nform at i on he may cons i der , ort he s our ce f r om w hi ch i tm aycome. ’ ” ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . “Few fac t s avai l abl e t o a s ent enci ng j udge, ” w e have obs erved, “ar e more r el evant-13-

t o the ‘ l i kel i hood t hat[a de fenda nt ] w i l l tr ans gr es s no m or e, the hope that h e m ayresp o n d to reh ab il it ati v e e ff o rt s to a ssistw ith a law fu l fu ture c are er, [ a n d ] th e d e g re e to w h ich h e d o e s o r d o e s n o t d e e m h im se lf a t w a r w ith h is s o c ie ty’” th a n a d e f

e n d a n t’ s w illin g n e s s to c o o p e ra te . (c ita tio n o m itte d ). T o d ay ’s op inion stat es, i n as in co n sp icuo u s m an n er a s p o ssible at the v ery e n d o f its a n a ly sis (o n e im a g in e s th a t if th e sta tem e n t w e re d e liv e re d o ra lly it w o u ld b e sp o k e n in a v e rylo w v o ice , an d w ith th e C o u rt’s h a n d o v e r its m o u th ), th a t it s h o ld in g a p p lies o n lyto in f e re n c e s d ra w n f

ro m sile n c e “ in det erm i ni ng t he fa ct s of the off ens e. ” ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . “W hethers i l ence bear s upon t he det erm i nat i on of a l ack of r emors e, orupon acc ept ance of re s p o n s ib ility f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

th e d o w n w a rd a d

ju s tm e n t p ro v id e d in § 3 E 1 .1 of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( 1998) , i s a s epar at e ques t i on” on w hi ch the maj or i t yexpr es s es no vi ew . ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . N everm i nd thatw e have s ai d befor e, al bei ti n di ct a, that“[w ] e doubtthata pr i nci pl ed di s t i nct i on m aybe dr aw n betw een ‘ enhanc i ng’ the puni s hm enti m pos ed upon t he pet i t i onerand deny i ng hi m the ‘ l eni ency ’ he cl ai m s w oul d be ap p rop ri ate if h e h ad co o p era ted.” (cit ati o n o m itted). O f c o u rse th e c lu tter s w e p t u n d e r th e ru g b ylim iti n g th e o p in io n to “d eterm ining fa cts o f th e o ff en se” is no t m ere lyap p li ca ti o n o f to d ay ’s opi ni on t o § 3E 1. 1, buti t s appl i cat i on t o al l det erm i nat i ons of ac cept ance of re sp o n sib ili ty , rep e n tan c e , ch a ra c ter , an d f u tu re d a n g e ro u sn e ss , in b o th fede r al and s t at e pr os ecut i ons - - t hati s t o s ay , t o w hati s pr obabl ythe bul k of w hatm os ts ent enci ng i s al l about . I f the C our tul t i m at el ydeci des - - i n t he ful l nes s of t i m e and a ft era dec entper i od of conf us i on i n t he l ow er c o u rts-- th a t th e “ n o in f

e re n c e ” ru le is in d e e d lim ited to “ d e ter m in in g f a c ts of the off

ens e, ” then w e w i l l have a s y s t em i n w hi ch a s t at e courtcan i ncr eas e the s ent ence of a c onvi ct ed drug pos s es s orw ho r efus es t o s ayhow m anyounces he pos s es s ed- - notbeca us e thats ugges t s he pos s es s ed the l ar geramount ( t o m ake s uch an i nfer ence w oul d be uncons t i tut i onal ! ) but beca us e hi s r efus al t o cooper at e s ugges t s he i s unr epent ant . A par tfr om the fac tt hatther e i s no l ogi cal bas i s fordr aw i ng s uch a l i ne w i t hi n t he se n ten c in g p h a se (w h e re a s d ra w in g a lin e b e tw e e n g u ilta n d se n ten c in g is e n t i r e l y l o g i c a l ) , t h e r e s u l tp r o d u c e d p r o v i d e s n e w s u p p o r tf o rM r . B u m b l e 's re n o w n e d e v a lu a tio n o f th e law . Its o n lyse n sib le f e a tu re is th a t itw ill a lm o st a lw a y s b e u n e n f o rc e a b le, s in c e it w ill o rd in a rilyb e im p o ss ib le to tell w h ethe r th e se n tenc er h as u sed the s il en ce fo r eith er p u rpo se o r fo r ne ith er. I f, on t he otherhand, t he C our tul t i m at el ydeci des - - i n t he ful l nes s of t i m e and a ft era dec entper i od of conf us i on i n t he l ow ercour t s - - t hatthe ext ens i on of G r i ffi n announce d t odayi s notl i m i t ed t o “det erm i ni ng fac t s ofSi nce M i t chel l , the ci r cui tcour t s have r eadi l yconfi ned M i t chel l t o i t s s t at ed 3 h o ld in g , a n d h a v e a llo w e d s e n te n c in g c o u rt s to re ly o n , o r d ra w in f e re n c e s f ro m , a defe ndant ’ s exer ci s e of hi s Fi fth A m endmentr i ght s forpurpos es ot herthan det erm i ni ng the fa ct s of the off

ens e of c onvi ct i on. E . g. , U ni t ed St at es v. W arr en, 338 F. 3d 258, 263 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e d e n ia l o f a s e n te n c in g re d u c tio n u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 5 C 1 .2 bas ed on a de fenda nt ’ s pos t - gui l t y - pl ea s i l ence cons t i tut ed a “ deni ed bene fi t ” r athert han a p en altyan d thu s av o ids F ifth A m en d m en t i m p li ca ti o n s). -14- the off ens e, ” then i tw i l l have c r eat ed a s y s t em i n w hi ch w e gi ve the s ent enci ng j udge ac ces s t o al l s or t s of out - of- courtevi dence , i ncl udi ng the m os tr emot e hea r s ay , conce r ni ng the cha r act erof the def endant , hi s pr i or m isd e e d s, h is a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili tya n d d e ter m in a tio n to m e n d h is w ay s , butdecl ar e t aboo the mostobvi ous pi ece of fi r s t hand evi dence s t andi ng i n fr ontof the j udge: the def endant ’ s r efus al t o cooper at e w i t h t he cour t . Such a rul e or der s t he j udge t o averthi s ey es fr om the el ephanti n t he c o u rtro o m w h e n it i s th e ju d g e ’s jo b to siz e u p th e e lep h a n t. T h e p a ten t in a d e q u a c yo f b o th o f th e se c o u rse s w ith re g a rd to det erm i ni ng m att er s othert han the “f act s of the off

ens e” i s notfi nes s ed by s i m pl yr es ol vi ng, fort he t i m e bei ng, nott o choos e betw een them. Sooner o r l ater the ch o ice m u st be m ad e, an d the f ac t th at bo th alterna ti v es a re uns at i s fac t or ycr i es outt hatt he C our t ’ s ext ens i on of G r i ffi n i s a mi s t ake. I d. at338- 41. C ons i der i ng t hes e thr ee de ci s i ons t ogether , w e conc l ude i tr emai ns unans w er ed by the Supr eme C our tw hethera s ent enci ng courti n a non- capi t al cas e may , forpurpos es otherthan det erm i ni ng t he fa ct s of the off ens e of c onvi ct i on, dr aw an adve r s e i nfer ence fr om a cr i m i nal defe ndant ’ s r efus al t o t es t i fyorcooper at e. A l t hough L ee c ont ends t he 3 deci s i on i n E s t el l e cl ear l yi ndi cat es , oratl eas ti m pl i es , thati ti s i m pr operfora s ent enci ng c o u rt to d ra w a n a d v e rse in f e re n c e u n d e r su c h c irc u m sta n c e s, E ste lle is d istin g u ish a b le beca us e i tw as a ca pi t al cas e and the Supr eme C our texpr es s l yemphasi zed “ t he gr avi tyof the dec i s i on t o be made att he pena l t yphas e” i n s uch a c as e. 451 U . S. at463. I ndeed,-15-

had Est el l e r es ol ved the i s s ue, t he C our ti n M i t chel l cl ear l yw oul d have s ai d as m uch ( and th e d e c isio n in M itch e ll m a yh a v e b e e n a lto g e th e r u n n e c e ss a ry ). In ste a d , the m a jo rityin M i t chel l l i m i t ed the appl i cat i on of Est el l e t o t he fa ct s befor e i t , i . e. , “w her e the G overnm ents [ought ] t o us e [the def endant ’ s ] s i l ence t o i nfercomm i s s i on of di s put ed c rim in a l ac ts” f

o r p u rp o se s o f

se n ten c in g , 5 2 6 U .S . at 3 2 9 , an d e x p re ss lyd e c lin e d to c o n sid e r w h e th e r E ste lle a p p lied w h e re , as in L e e ’s c a se , the se n ten c in g c o u rt so u g h t to us e Lee’ s s i l ence forpurpos es ot herthan det erm i ni ng the fa ct s of the off ens e of convi ct i on. T hus , contr aryt o L ee’ s as s er t i ons , ther e w as no “cl ear l yes t abl i s hed” f eder al l aw pr ohi bi t i ng w hatt he tr i al courtdi d i n hi s cas e, i . e. , dr aw i ng an adve r s e i nfer ence fr om L ee’ s r efus al t o s ubm i tt o a ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on forpurpos es of det erm i ni ng w hether L e e re p re se n ted a c o n tin u in g d a n g e r to so c ietya n d /o r w h e th e r h e w a s a m e n a b le to r ehabi l i t at i on. I n tur n, t hen, t he W y om i ng Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on aff i r m i ng the tr i al c o u rt’s a c tio n s w a s n o t “c o n tra ryto ” o r a n “ u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f ” c lea rly e s t a b l i s h e d f

e d e r a l l a w. I I . R E Q U E ST F O R C OA – D O U B LE JEO P

A R D Y / D U E PR O C E SS L ee a l s o as ks us t o expand the C O A i ni t i al l ygr ant ed bythe di s t r i ctcour ti n or der t o all ow him t o ap peal the d i stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of the do ub l e j eop ardyand du e process ar gum ent s he as s er t ed i n hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on. I n or derforus t o gr anta C O A , L ee m u s t m a k e “ a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . T o do s o, L ee mustdemonstr at e “thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether-16-

( or , forthatm att er , agr ee that ) t he [i s s ue] s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm anner orthatthe i s s ue[] . . . w [as ] adequa t e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur t her . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on o m itte d ). L ee’ s doubl e j eopar dyand due pr oces s ar gum ent s conce r n t he s ent ence he r ece i ved forC ount5. A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, C ount5 char ged Lee w i t h s exual as s aul tand al l eged thatbetw een O ct ober4, 1996 and D ece m ber31, 1998, L ee c om m i t t ed or al s ex on a m i no r vi ct i m . A tt he ti m e he p l ed g uil t yt o C ou nt 5, L ee adm i t t ed these al l egati on s, in c lu d in g th e d a te r a n g e , b u t w a s u n a b le to in d ica te m o re d e f in itelyw h e n th e e v e n ts o c c u rre d . L e e d id in d ica te, h o w e v e r, th a t h e h a d se x u a l co n tac t w ith th e v ictim a lleg e d in C ount5 on t hr ee orfourocca s i ons . A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng on M ay24, 2000, the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d L ee t o notl es s than tw el ve norm or e than fi ft een y ear s on C ount 5. N ot abl y , t hats ent ence w as w i t hi n t he fi ft een- y earm axi m um s ent ence author i zed underW y om i ng l aw fort hi r d- degr ee s exual as s aul t s occurr i ng aft erJ ul y1, 1997, s ee W y o. St at . A nn. § 6- 2- 306( a) ( i i i ) , butfargr eat erthan the fi ve- y earm axi m um s ent ence author i zed unde rW y om i ng l aw fors uch cr i m es pr i ort o J ul y1, 1997. O n J ul y21, 2000, a h ea ri n g w as h eld d u ri n g w h ich th e p rose cu ti o n w as a ll o w ed to “s u p p lem en t th e re co rd o n th e f a c tu a l b a sis w ith re sp e c t to C o u n t 5 ” in o rd e r to e sta b lish th a t th e u n d e rly in g f a c ts of the cr i m e occ ur r ed af t erJ ul y1997. A l t hough the tr i al cour tul t i m at el yr es ent ence d L ee on C ount3 beca us e the ac t s under l y i ng thatcountoccurr ed pr i ort o J ul y1, 1997, the tr i al cour tdi d notal t erL ee’ s s ent ence on C ount5.-17-

I n hi s di r ectappea l , L ee a r gued thathe w as i l l egal l ys ent ence d on C ount5. L ee al s o ar gued thatt he s ent enci ng pr oces s on C ount5, i n par t i cul arthe tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o al l ow the pr os ecut i on t o pr es ents uppl ement al evi dence r egar di ng the dat es w hen the a c ts u n d e rly in g C o u n t 5 o c c u rre d , v io late d h is rig h t n o t to b e su b jec ted to d o u b le j eopar dy . T he W y om i ng Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed both of thes e ar gum ent s . T he W y o m in g S u p re m e C o u rt f irst c o n c lu d e d th a t “[ b ]e c a u se [ L e e ] sp e c if ica lly acknow l edged hi s gui l tand thatt he cr i m e occ urr ed atanyt i m e betw een O ct ober4, 1996, and D ece m ber31, 1998, ” hi s s ent ence on C ount5 w as noti l l egal . A pp. at265. T he W y om i ng Supr eme C our tal s o concl uded thatthe s uppl ement al evi dence pr es ent ed byt he pr os ecut i on r egar di ng C ount5 w as “s uper fl uous beca us e al l the evi dence offe r ed al r eady exi s t ed i n t he s ent enci ng r ecor d . . . . ” I d. at266. M or e s peci fi cal l y , the W y om i ng Supr eme C our tnot ed that“[t ] he pr os ecut i on’ s s ol e ‘ s uppl ement al ’ evi dence cons i s t ed of a pol i ce of

fi cer ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he s ame i nform at i on thatw as i ncl uded i n t he aff i davi tof pr obabl e ca us e. ” I d. T hus , the W y om i ng Supr eme C our tconcl uded that “w hi l e th[e] eff

or tt o s uppl ementt he r ecor d aft erthe s ent ence w as i m pos ed maynothave been appr opr i at e, no harm w as done. ” I d. Fi nal l y , the W y om i ng Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed L e e ’s d o u b le je o p a rd ya rg u m e n t: M r . L ee a l s o compl ai ns t hatthe s ent enci ng pr oces s s om ehow r ai s ed a doubl e j eopar dyi s s ue. H ow ever , thi s cl ai m i s s uppor t ed mer el yby re f e re n c e to A p p re n d i v . N e w Je rse y , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 (2 0 0 0 ). In A p p re n d i, th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt f o u n d a N e w Je rse ysta te s tatu te uncons t i tut i onal beca us e i tr emoved det erm i nat i on of one of the el ement s of a fe l onyoffe ns e–w hethert he off ens e w as comm i t t ed w i t h a bi as ed p u rpo se– fro m the ju ryfo r de term ination b ythe ju d g e o n the lesse r st an d ard of pr eponder ance of the evi dence . W e fa i l t o s ee how thi s author i t yhas any-18-

b ea ri n g o n the c ir cu m stan ce s o f th is case . (cit ati o n o m itted). T he doubl e j eopar dycl aus e pr ot ect s agai ns ta s econd pr os ecut i on forthe s ame offens e af

t eracqui t t al , a s econd pr os ecut i on forthe s ame offens e af t er convi ct i on, and mul t i pl e puni s hm ent s forthe s ame offens e. ( ci t at i ons o mi t t e d ) . W h e n we a n a l y z e t h e p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s td o u b l e j e o p a r d yi n t e r ms of m ul t i pl e pr os ecut i ons and cumul at i ve puni s hm ent s , w e appl ythe s t a tut orye l e ment s t e s tde fi ne d i n Bl oc kb ur ge rv. U ni t e d St a t e s , 28 4 U. S. 299 ( 1932) . ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H ow ever , the i ns t antcas e pr es ent s nei t her m u ltip le p ro s e c u tio n s n o r m u ltip le p u n is h m e n ts f o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e . M or eover , M r . L ee ha s fai l ed t o ci t e per s uas i ve author i t yorm ake c ogent a rg u m e n t in s u p p o rt o f

h is d o u b le je o p a rd yc o n te n tio n s . (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T her efor e, t he i s s ue mer i t s no fur t hercons i der at i on. I d. at267- 68. L ee r eas s er t ed thes e doubl e j eopar dyand due pr oces s ar gum ent s i n hi s fede r al h ab ea s p eti ti o n (an d inclu d ed in h is pe ti ti o n ad d it ion al du e p roc ess a rgu m en ts th at w ere notas s er t ed i n s t at e court ) . L ee a r gued, i n par t i cul ar , that“w her e ther e has been no change r el at ed t o t he or i gi nal convi ct i on ( ei t herbya s ucce s s ful appea l of the convi ct i on byt he def

endantoran appe al of the s ent ence bythe St at e) , the St at e s houl d onl ybe ent i t l ed t o one opportuni t yt o demonstr at e thatthe s ent ence i m pos ed i s pr operforthe offe ns e of c onvi ct i on. ” A pp. at27. “B yaddi ng t o t he r ecor d aft erthe fa ct , ” Lee ar gued, “the St at e w as perm i t t ed t o j us t i fya s ent ence thr ee t i m es l ongerthan the s ent ence w hi ch w as perm i s s i bl e fort he off ens e of c onvi ct i on bas ed on the fa ct s admi t t ed atthe t i m e of th e p lea .” Id . L a stly , citin g A p p re n d i, L e e a rg u e d th a t “[ t]h e h e a rin g a t w h ich th e S tate s uppl ement ed the r ecor d” coul d “notbe s ai d t o comportw i t h t he due pr oces s s t andar ds nece s s aryt o pr ove a ‘ fac t ’ – t he dat e of the off ens e – w hi ch tr i pl ed [hi s ] m axi m um s ent enci ng expos ur e. ” I d.-19-

T he d i stri ctcou rtrej ect ed L ee’s argum ents : M r. L e e ’s d o u b le je o p a rd ya n d d u e p ro c e s s a rg u m e n ts a re m is p la c e d . T hi s C our tagr ees w i t h t he W y om i ng Supr eme C our tthatA ppr endi i s not ap p li ca b le t o this case an d d o es n o t sup p o rteith er a d o u b le j eo p ard yo r a due pr oces s cl ai m . M r . L ee w as nots ubj ect ed t o m ul t i pl e puni s hm ent s for the s am e o ff

en se. F u rth er, al tho u g h a c o u rtm ayn o t i n cre ase a d ef en d an t’ s se n ten c e o n c e th e d e f

e n d a n t h a s a leg iti m a te e x p e c tatio n o f f in a lityin h is or i gi nal s ent ence , ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) , M r . L ee’ s s ent ence w as noti ncr eas ed b yth e trial c o u rt. B yp lea d in g g u ilty , a d e f e n d a n t ad m its in v o lv e m e n t in th e c rim e u p to an d inclu d ing the last d ate a ll eg ed in the ch arg e. (ci tat ion o m itted). M r. L ee pl eade d gui l t yt o s exual as s aul ton L B [the mi norvi ct i m i n C ount5] betw een O ct ober4, 1996, and D ece m ber31, 1998. T he s uppl ement al evi dence offe r ed byt he s t at e does notchange the fa ctthatM r . L ee a dm i t t ed thathe s exual l yas s aul t ed LB aft erthe J ul y1, 1997 eff ect i ve dat e of the penal t yi ncr eas e. A ddi t i onal l y , the evi dence i n t he r ecor d ats ent enci ng pr ovi ded a f

actual bas i s t hatM r . L ee s exual l yas s aul t ed LB aft erJ ul y1, 1997. ( ci t at i on t o r ecor d om i t t ed) . M r . L ee ha s nots how n t hat[the] W y o m in g S u p re m e C o u rt im p ro p e rlyre jec ted h is d u e p ro c e ss o r d o u b le jeo p a rd ya rg u m e n t. I d. at390- 91. A ft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d on appea l , w e conc l ude ther e i s no bas i s forgr ant i ng a C O A t o L ee on hi s doubl e j eopar dyand due pr oces s ar gum ent s . T o begi n w i t h, the W y o m in g S u p re m e C o u rt f o u n d , as a m a tter o f

h isto ric a l f

a c t, th a t (1 ) L e e a d m itt e d to engagi ng i n w r ongful conductaft erJ ul y1, 1997, and ( 2) the “s uppl ement al ” evi dence p rese n ted b ythe p rose cu ti o n w as “ su p erf luo u s” b ec au se th e sa m e e v iden ce w as b ef o re th e trial c o u rt a t th e tim e o f L e e ’s s e n ten c in g . T h e f irst o f th e se f in d in g s is a m p ly s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d on appea l ( i n par t i cul arthe tr ans cr i ptof Lee’ s gui l t ypl ea h e a rin g ), an d th u s L e e c a n n o t es tab lish th a t th e f in d in g a m o u n ted to a n “ u n re a so n a b le det erm i nat i on . . . i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n t he s t at e courtpr ocee di ng. ” 28A l t hough L ee ha s i ncl uded i n hi s appendi x a copyof the hea r i ng atw hi ch the 4 p ro se c u tio n p re se n ted th e “ su p p lem e n tal” e v id e n c e , h e h a s n o t in c lu d e d a ll th e m a ter ials avai l abl e t o t he tr i al courtatt he t i m e of s ent enci ng C u rio u sly , the d iss e n t ac k n o w led g e s th a t L e e p led g u iltyto c o m m itt in g a n a ss a u lt 5 “ o n so m e d a te d u rin g th e 2 7 -m o n th p e rio d sta ted in C o u n t 5 ,” b u t n e v e rth e les s a ss e rts th a t th e p lea c a n n o t b e c o n stru e d a s a n a d m iss io n th a t an a ss a u lt o c c u rre d o n o r a f ter Ju ly 1, 1997. T hi s l att eras s er t i on, how ever , fl i es i n t he fa ce of the expr es s t erm s of the i ndi ctm entand Lee’ s admi s s i ons atthe t i m e of the pl ea he ar i ng, and ef fec t i vel yand i m pr oper l ynarr ow s t he t erm s of Lee’ s pl ea. W e i ns t ead c oncl ude, as di d t he W y om i ng Supr eme C our tand the di s t r i ctcour t , thatL ee’ s pl ea c ons t i tut es an admi s s i on of i nvol vementi n t he cr i m e up t o and i ncl udi ng the l as tdat e al l eged i n C ount5 of the i ndi ctm ent( i . e. , D ece m ber31, 1998) . See U ni t ed St at es v. B r oce, 488 U . S. 563, 570 ( 1989) ( not i ng t hata gui l t ypl ea “ i s an admi s s i on that[the def endant ] comm i t t ed the crim e c h arg ed ag ains t him ”) (interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). -20- U . S. C . § 2254( d) ( 2) . A s fort he s econd f i ndi ng, L ee ha s notar gued thati tw as unr eas onabl e under§ 2254( d) ( 2) , norhas he eve n pr es ent ed an a dequat e r ecor d on appea l t o al l ow us t o det erm i ne w hethert he evi dence avai l abl e t o t he tr i al cour tatthe t i m e of s ent enci ng w as t he s ame as t he s uppl ement al evi dence l at erpr es ent ed bythe pr os ecut i on. 4 M or eover , as not ed byt he W y om i ng Supr eme C our t , L ee s i m pl yhas notbeen s ubj ect ed t o mul t i pl e pu ni s hmen t s fo rt he s a me of fe ns e . E. g. , N ort h Car ol i na v. Pe a r c e , 39 5 U. S. 7 1 1 , 7 1 7 (1 9 6 9 ) ( d is c u s s in g th e D o u b le J e o p a rd yC la u s e o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t) . R ather , he w as s ubj ect ed t o a s i ngl e, tw el ve- t o- fi ft een y ears ent ence forhi s admi t t ed cr i m e of e ngagi ng i n or al s ex w i t h a mi norats om e poi ntbetw een J ul y1, 1997, and D ece m ber31, 1998. 5 T h e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f f e d e ra l h a b e a s re lief

w ith re sp e c t to L e e ’s F if th A m endments el f- i ncr i m i nat i on cl ai m i s A FFIRM E D . L ee’ s r eques tforan expa nded CO A i s DE NI E D.0 4 -8 1 1 6 , L ee v. C rouse

HA RTZ , C irc u it Ju d g e , co n c u rrin g in p a rt a n d d iss e n tin g in p a rt:

I agr ee thatM r . L ee ha s notes t abl i s hed a vi ol at i on of hi s pr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el fi ncr i m i nat i on and i s notent i t l ed t o a C O A on hi s doubl e- j eopar dycl ai m . I w oul d, ho w ever, granta C O A on his du e-pr ocess cl ai m and rem and for further proceedings. I . DI S AG REEM ENT W I TH M AJ OR I TY M ydi s agr eementw i t h t he maj or i t yr el at es t o w hati tm eans t o pl ead gui l t yt o a c h a r g e th a ta d i s c r e t e o f f e n s e wa s c o mmi t t e d a ts o me p o i n twi t h i n a n e x t e n d e d t i me per i od. T he maj or i t ybel i eves t hats uch a pl ea c ons t i tut es an admi s s i on thatthe def endant comm i t t ed the off

ens e ats om e t i m e dur i ng the fi nal tw o- t hi r ds of thatper i od. I cannot a c c e p t th a t p ro p o s itio n . T hi s poi nti s i m por t anti n t he ca s e bef or e us beca us e, as w e al l agr ee, i tw oul d have been i m pr opert o s ent ence M r . L ee t o 15 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm enton C ountV unl es s he c o m m itt e d th e se x u a l as sa u lt o n o r a f ter Ju ly1 , 1 9 9 7 , the e f

f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e sta tu te i n c r e a s i n g t h e ma x i mu m p e n a l t yf r o m f i v e y e a r s t o f

i f t e e n . M r . Le e ’ s d u e - p r o c e s s c l a i m, r el y i ng on Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6 (200 0) ( han ded do w n w hil e his case w as on di r ectappea l ) , i s t hathe w as i m pr oper l ys ent ence d t o 15 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent beca us e no j ur yfound, and he di d notadmi t , thatthe off ens e occ urr ed af

t erJ une 30, 1 9 9 7 . T he maj or i t yopi ni on avoi ds addr es s i ng the l egal componentof thi s cont ent i on by r ej ect i ng the fa ctual pr emi s e. I tconcl udes thatthe W y om i ng Supr eme C our t ’ s rul i ng t hat- 2-

“Lee admi t t ed t o engagi ng i n w r ongful conductaft erJ ul y1, 1997, . . . i s ampl ys uppor t ed byt he r ecor d on appea l ( i n part i cul arthe tr ans cr i ptof Lee’ s gui l tpl ea he ar i ng) . . . . ” O p. at19. I di s agr ee. M r . L ee’ s pl ea t o C ountV di d notcons t i tut e an a dm i s s i on thathe comm i t t ed the cr i m e af t erJ ul y1, 1997; nordi d hi s s t at ement s atthe hea r i ng. C ou nt V st at es: O n o r b e tw e e n O c to b e r 4 , 1 9 9 6 , an d D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 1 9 9 8 , in C ampbel l C ount y , W y om i ng, D efe ndantdi d unl aw ful l yi nfl i cts exual i ntrus i on on a vi ct i m , w hen atthe t i m e of the comm i s s i on of the ac t , the vi ct i m w as l es s t han s i xt een ( 16) y ear s of age and the ac t orw as atl eas tfour ( 4) y ear s ol dert han the vi ct i m , s peci fi cal l y : D efe ndantdi d per form or al s ex w i th L B , w hos e dat e of bi r t h i s O ct ober4, 1985, i n vi ol at i on of W y om i ng S t a tu t e § 6 - 2 - 3 0 4 ( a ) ( i ) , § 6 - 2 - 3 0 6 , a n d § 6 - 1 0 - 1 0 2 , a f e l o n y. O f the thr ee s t atut es ci t ed i n t he cha r ge, §§ 6- 2- 306 and 6- 10- 102 r el at e t o penal t i es . T he o f f e n se is d e f

in e d in § 6 -2 -3 0 4 (a )(i), w h ich sta tes : ( a) A n act orcomm i t s s exual as s aul ti n t he thi r d degr ee i f, under c irc u m sta n c e s n o t co n stitu tin g se x u a l as sa u lt i n th e f irst o r se c o n d d e g re e : (i) T h e a c to r is a t lea st f o u r (4 ) y e a rs o ld e r th a n th e v ictim a n d in f licts s e x u a l in tru s io n o n a v ic tim u n d e r t h e a g e o f s ix te e n (1 6 ) ye a rs . . . . T h u s, th e o f

f e n se a lleg e d in C o u n t V is a d isc re te a c t o c c u rrin g a t o n e p o in t in tim e , n o t a c o n tin u in g o f

f e n se . A s th e W y o m in g S u p re m e C o u rt w ro te o n M r. L e e ’s a p p e a l: To o b t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n f o rs e x u a l a s s a u l ti n th e th i r d d e g r e e o f LB, the s t at e nee ded onl yt o pr ove the el ement s of the cr i m e s etouti n § 6- 2- 3 0 4 (a )(i); e. g. , t he def

endantcomm i t t ed s exual as s aul t. . . byi nfl i ct i ng s exual i nt rus i on on L B w ho w as underthe age of s i xt een y ear s and the d e f e n d a n t w a s m o re th a n f o u r ye a rs o ld e r. Lee v. W yom i ng , 3 6 P .3 d 1 1 3 3 , 1 1 3 8 (W y o . 2 0 0 1 ). T h e e rro r o f

th e W y o m in g S u p re m e C o u rt, se c o n d e d b yth e m a jo rityo p in io n , is in- 3-

s a y in g , “ M r. L e e p le a d e d g u ilty to th e c h a rg e o f th ir d -d e g re e s e x u a l a s s a u lt o n L .B ., adm i t t i ng the cr i m e occ ur r ed at anyt i m e betw een the dat es of O ctober4, 1996, thr ough D ece m ber31, 1998 , a t i m e fr ame w hi ch ext ended ove ra y earand a ha l f bey ond t he J ul y1, 1997, eff

ect i ve dat e of the new s ent enci ng s t atut e. ” Id . at 1 1 3 8 -3 9 (e m p h a sis added) . T hati s pat ent l yi ncorr ect . M r . L ee’ s pl ea di d notadmi tthathe comm i t t ed the as s aul t“atanyt i m e” i n t he al l eged pe r i od; i tj us tadmi t t ed thathe comm i t t ed the as s aul tat s o me t i m e w i t hi n t he per i od. T hatt i m e coul d w el l have be en before J ul y1, 1997. T he s ent enci ng courtw oul d have a ct ed pr oper l yi n acc ept i ng the pl ea t o C ountV i f M r . L ee had admi t t ed comm i t t i ng t he off ens e s peci fi cal l yon O ct ober5, 1996; on J anuary1, 1997; o n J u n e 3 0 , 1 9 9 7 ; o r o n a n yo th e r d a te b e f o re J u ly 1 , 1 9 9 7 , a n d w ith in th e a lle g e d p e ri o d . ( O f cour s e, i tcoul d al s o have a cce pt ed the pl ea i f M r . L ee ha d admi t t ed comm i t t i ng t he offe ns e on a s peci fi c dat e af t erJu ly1 , 1 9 9 7 , an d w ith in th e a lleg e d p e rio d .) A sim p le plea t o the i nd i ct m ent, w i t ho ut m ore, did not, and cou l d n ot, est abli sh t hat the o ffen se o c c u rr e d a f

te r J u ly 1 , 1 9 9 7 . T he i ndi ctm ent ’ s r efe r ence t o “on orbetw een O ct ober4, 1996, and D ece m ber31, 1998" w as not , as i n a cons pi r acychar ge, forthe purpos e of c har gi ng thata cont i nui ng offe ns e w as ongoi ng t hr oughoutt hatent i r e per i od. R ather , as i s oft en the ca s e w i t h chi l ds exual - abus e off

ens es , t he vi ct i m w as unabl e t o gi ve pr eci s e dat es forthe off ens e, s o the in d ic tm e n t h a d to b e im p re c is e c o n c e rn in g th e tim e o f th e o f f e n s e . See, e. g. , Stat e v. A l t gilbers , 786 P. 2d 680, 693- 95 ( N . M . C t . A pp. 1989) . T he i ndi ctm enti s s ay i ng thatt he gr and j urycoul d notbe s ur e w hen the off ens e occ urr ed, buti tw as s om e t i m e w i t hi n the- 4-

27- m onth per i od. I ndeed, i f the s t at e coul d have pr oved, s ay , fours peci fi c i nci dent s of s exual as s aul ton L . B . on s peci fi c dat es betw een O ct ober4, 1996, and D ece m ber31, 1998, M r . L ee c oul d have be en cha r ged w i t h fours epar at e count s . I n s hor t , bypl eadi ng gui l tyt o C ountV , M r . L ee w as notadmi t t i ng thathe comm i t t ed a s exual as s aul taft er J une 30, 1997. H e w as admi t t i ng onl ythathe comm i t t ed an a s s aul ton s om e dat e dur i ng the 2 7 -m o n th p eriod stat ed in C o u n t V , an d that d ate c o u ld just as w ell h av e b ee n b ef o re J ul y1, 1997, as aft erw ar ds . T o s aythata pl ea t o C ountV cons t i tut es an admi s s i on that th e o f f e n se w a s c o m m itt e d a f

ter Ju ly1 , 1 9 9 7 , is like sa y in g th a t o n e w h o p lea d s g u iltyto pos s es s i on of m or e than an ounc e of he r oi n t her ebyadmi t s pos s es s i ng a t on of her oi n, or a n yo th e r q u a n tity e x c e e d in g a n o u n c e . Cf . U n itedS ta tes v . C ro c ke tt , 812 F. 2d 626, 629 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (p lea to c h a rg e o f c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss m a riju a n a w ith in ten t to d is tr ib u te d id n o t a d m it th a t c o n s p ir a c yin v o lv e d m o re th a n 5 0 k ilo g ra m s o f m a ri ju a n a ). N ordi d M r . L ee s ayanyt hi ng atthe pl ea he ar i ng thatadded a nygr eat erpr eci s i on to h is ad m issi o n . O n the c o n tr ary , w h en ask ed b ythe ju d g e if h e c o u ld b e a n ym o re defi ni t e, he s ai d t hathe coul d not . T hus , ther e i s no evi dence t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng that M r . L ee a dm i t t ed athi s pl ea he ar i ng t hathe had c om m i t t ed a s exual as s aul taft erJ une 30, 1 9 9 7 . I wo u l d h o l d , a s r e q u i r e d b y2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( i ) , th a tth e W y o mi n g S u p r e me C our tcl ear l yerr ed i n m aki ng t hatfi ndi ng. B el i evi ng as I do t hatM r . L ee di d notadmi tathi s pl ea he ar i ng thathe had comm i t t ed the cha r ged off ens e af t erthe ef fec t i ve dat e of the s t atut e perm i t t i ng i m pos i t i on of a 15- y ears ent ence , I w oul d nots um m ar i l ydi s pos e of M r . L ee’ s due- pr oces s cl ai m by- 5-

den y i ng a C O A . R at her, as explai ned below , I w ou l d g ranta C O A on that cl ai m becau se ( 1) he r ai s es a s ubs t ant i al cons t i tut i onal cl ai m bas ed on Appr endi ; and ( 2) al t hough I w o u ld h o ld th a t th e c la im is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d b yf a ilu re to e x h a u s t s ta te re m e d ie s , a r eas onabl e j ur i s tm i ghtfi nd no pr ocedur al barw hen gi vi ng the mat t erthe mer e fi r s tl ook des cr i bed i n Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 53 7 U . S . 32 2, 33 7 (200 3) ( t he C O A determ i nati on i s a thr es hol d i nqui r yt hat“does notr equi r e ful l cons i der at i on of the fa ctual orl egal bas es ad d u ce d in su p p o rto f th e c lai m s”). T h u s, M r. L ee h as sa ti sfied the re q u ir em en ts fo r a C O A se t f

o rth in Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( m er i t s of cl ai m and p ro c e d u ra l b a r m u s t b e d e b a ta b le to ju s tif yC O A ). I be g in b yad d ressing ex h au sti o n . T o an aly ze that issue I firstd esc ri b e M r. L ee ’s arg u m en t t o the W y o m ing S u p rem e C o u rt , then su m m arize h is argu m en t t o this co u rt (w h ich I b eli ev e to h av e su b stan ti al m erit ), an d then co n clud e tha t his st ate-co u rt a rg u m e n t d id n o t f

a irlyp re se n t th e a rg u m e n t h e n o w m a k e s. F in a lly , I tu rn to w h a t I b e liev e to b e th e p ro p e r d isp o sitio n o f th is a p p e a l. I I . E X HA US T I ON A E D PA pr ovi des t hata s t at e pr i s oner ’ s appl i cat i on forhabea s r el i ef maynotbe g r a n t e d u n l e s s t h e p r i s o n e rh a s e x h a u s t e d th e r e me d i e s a v a i l a b l e i n s t a t e c o u r t . 2 8 U. S . C. § 2254( b) ( 1) ( A ) . I n P i car d v. C onnor , 404 U . S. 270, 275- 76 ( 1971) , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our texpl ai ned: “W e emphas i ze thatthe fe der al cl ai m m us tbe f ai r l y pr es ent ed t o the s t at e court s . . . . O nl yi f the s t at e court s have ha d t he fi r s toppor tuni t yt o heart he cl ai m s oughtt o be vi ndi cat ed i n a fe der al habea s pr ocee di ng does i tm ake s ens e t o s peak- 6-

of the exha us t i on of s t at e r emedi es . ” Id . (em p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o Ni chol

s v. Sul l i van , 8 6 7 F .2 d 1 2 5 0 , 1 2 5 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( d is c u s s in g f a ir -p re s e n ta tio n re q u ir e m e n t) . A . M r. L ee’ s St at e A ppeal T he pert i nents ect i on of M r . L ee’ s br i ef t o t he W y om i ng Supr eme C our tcarr i ed the hea di ng: “The t r i al courtcomm i t t ed err ori n al l ow i ng the St at e t o s uppl ementthe fac tual bas i s aft ers ent enci ng. ” A pl ee. A pp. at24. O verthe cour s e of the s even- page d isc u ss io n u n d e r th is h e a d in g , M r. L e e a rg u e d th e se n ten c in g ju d g e ’s la c k o f a u th o rity u n d er the W y o m ing R u les o f C ri m inal P roc ed u re to su p p lem en t th e re co rd; th e jud g e’s err ori n addi ng “extr a i nni ngs t o a bas ebal l game, ” i d. at26; the j udge’ s vi ol at i on of R ul e 11 of the W y om i ng R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, w hi ch r el at es t o gui l t ypl eas ; and, fin all y , the a ll eg ed v iolati o n o f d o u b le-j eo p ard yp ri n ciples a ri sing fro m the re co rd s uppl ement at i on. T he tw o par agr aphs cont ai ni ng the doubl e- j eopar dyar gum entw er e as f o llo w s: T he l aw change d and al l part i es fai l ed t o not i ce. T hos e ki nds of thi ngs can a nd do happen. T he pr obl em i s w i t h how the pr os ecut i on and the tr i al courtt r i ed t o s w eep the mi s t akes underthe rug bybel at edl ychangi ng th e f a c ts to f it th e a c tio n p re v io u slytak e n . H o w e v e r, th e S tate ’s f a ilu re to t ake i nt o acc ounta cha nged l aw i s nota good r eas on t o t hr ow the C o n s titu tio n o u t o n its e a r. Ignoran ce of the law is not an excu se . T h e F if th A m endmentgi ves verycl earpr ot ect i on agai ns tdoubl e j eopar dyi n cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , and the s t at e’ s s uppl ement at i on of the r ecor d i s an exa m pl e of w hatt he Fi fth A m endmenti s des i gned t o pr ot ectagai ns t . B yaddi ng t o t he r ecor d aft er - t he- fac t , t he St at e s oughtt o j us t i fya s ent ence thr ee t i m es l ongert han the s ent ence w hi ch w as perm i s s i bl e underthe fa ct s as they e x iste d a t th e tim e se n ten c e w a s im p o se d . T h a t, i n e f f e c t, vio late s d o u b le je o p a rd y . S e e U .S . C o n s t. A m e n d s . V , X IV ; W y o .C o n s t.A rt : 1 , § 1 1 . In e f f e c t, th e S tate so u g h t a s e c o n d b ite a t th e se n ten c in g a p p le- 7-

becau se i tfai l ed to ensure that a val i d sentence w as i m po sed i n the fi rs t i ns t ance . T he tr i al court , byperm i t t i ng the St at e r etr oact i vel yt o j us t i fythe i l l egal s ent ence , w i t h “s uppl ement al ” evi dence , thr ew al l not i ons of due pr oces s outt he w i ndow . T he hea r i ng atw hi ch the St at e s uppl ement ed the re c o rd , w ith th e in tro d u c tio n o f v a g u e h e a rsa ye v id e n c e , ca n n o t b e sa id to comportw i t h t he due pr oces s s t andar ds nece s s aryt o pr ove a ‘ fac t ’ w hi ch w o u ld tr ip le M r. L e e ’s m a x im u m s e n te n c in g e x p o s u re . See, e. g. , Appr endi v. N ew Jer s ey , 120 S. C t . 2348 ( U . S. 2000) ( ful l due pr oces s pr ot ect i ons appl yw i t h r egar d t o anyfac tw hi ch ca n i ncr eas e a s ent ence bey ond t he o th e rw is e a v a ila b le s ta tu to ry m a x im u m ). Id . a t 2 9 -3 0 . T he W y om i ng Supr eme C our tr es ponded t o M r . L ee’ s ci t at i on of Ap p re n d i by expr es s i ng puzzl ementati t s purpos e: M r . L ee a l s o compl ai ns t hatt he s ent enci ng pr oces s s om ehow r ai s ed a doubl e j eopar dyi s s ue. H ow ever , thi s cl ai m i s s uppor t ed mer el yby r efe r ence t o Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 530 U . S. 466, 120 S. C t . 2348, 147 L . E d. 2d 435 ( 2000) . I n Appr endi , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tfound a N ew J er s eys t at e s t atut e uncons t i tut i onal beca us e i tr emoved det erm i nat i on of one of t he el ement s of a f

el onyoffe ns e . . . fr om the j uryfor det erm i nat i on byt he j udge on the l es s ers t andar d of pr eponder ance of the evi dence . W e fa i l t o s ee how thi s author i t yhas anybear i ng on t he c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th is c a s e . 36 P . 3d at11 40 . T o resol ve w hetherM r. L ee’s Ap p re n d i c laim b e f

o re u s w a s f

a irly p re se n ted to th e W y o m in g S u p re m e C o u rt, I m u st p ro c e e d to d e ter m in e w h a t th a t cla im is . B . M r. L ee ’s P re sen t A ppr endiC la im I n Ap p re n d i t he def

endant ’ s s ent ence s on t w o w eapons char ges w er e enha nced b e y o n d th e o th e rw ise -a p p lica b le s tatu to rym a x im u m w h e n th e se n ten c in g ju d g e , in acc or dance w i t h a s t at e hat e- cr i m es s t atut e, found bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hat- 8-

the cr i m es w er e mot i vat ed byr aci al bi as . 530 U . S. at469- 71. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tr ever s ed, hol di ng t hat“[o] t herthan the fa ctof a pr i orconvi ct i on, anyfac t thati ncr eas es t he pena l t yfora cr i m e bey ond t he pr es cr i bed s t atut orym axi m um m us tbe s ubm i t t ed t o a j ur y , and pr oved bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” I d. at490. A s r es t at ed r ece nt l ybyt he Supr eme C our ti n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 , 2 4 4 (20 0 5 ), “[a ] nyfac t( ot hert han a pr i orconvi ct i on) w hi ch i s nece s s aryt o s uppor ta s ent ence ex ce ed ing the m ax im u m au tho ri ze d b ythe f ac ts establishe d b ya p lea o f g u il tyo r a jury v e rd ict m u st b e a d m itt e d b yth e d e f e n d a n t o r p ro v e d to a ju ryb e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . ” In hi s appea l t o thi s C ou rt , M r. L ee st at es hi s Ap p re n d i argum ent as foll ow s: C r i t i cal s ent enci ng fac t s m us tei t herbe admi t t ed bythe def endantorpr oved byt he s t at e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtbeca us e due pr oces s pr ot ect i ons e x ten d n o t o n lyto d e ter m in a tio n s o f g u ilto r in n o c e n c e b u t als o to sent encing d et erm i nati on s . . . . T he d at e t hat this off ense oc curr ed w as a fac tt hatcoul d have i ncr eas ed, and i n fac tdi d i ncr eas e, M r . L ee’ s s ent ence , f o r if th e d a te w e re d e ter m in e d to b e p rio r to th e 1 9 9 7 a m e n d m e n t h is s e n te n c e w o u ld b e o n e -t h ir d a s lo n g . A pl t . R epl yB r . at7. T he ar gum entappea r s t o have mer i t , cert ai nl yenough t o s at i s fyt he requi rem ent for gr anti ng a C O A . I not e t he cri t i cal i m po rt ance o f t he d at e of the off ense char ged i n C ountFi ve. I f the off ens e occ urr ed bef

or e J ul y1, 1997, the maxi m um s e n te n c e w a s f

iv e y e a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t; f o r o f f e n s e s o n o r a f

te r t h a t d a te it w a s 1 5 y e a rs . M r . L ee’ s pl ea pr ovi ded no s peci fi c dat e butm er el ya r ange of pos s i bl e dat es that i ncl uded a pe r i od befor e J ul y1, 1997. B eca us e the dat e of the off ens e appe ar s t o be a f

act

“ n e c e ss a ryto su p p o rt a se n ten c e e x c e e d in g th e m a x im u m a u th o riz e d b yth e f a c ts- 9-

es t abl i s hed by[M r . L ee’ s ] pl ea of gui l t y , ” B ooker , 543 U . S. at244, one coul d ar gue that Ap p re n d i r equi r es t he dat e t o have be en det erm i ned bya j uryundera bey ond- ar eas onabl e- doubts t andar d of pr oof. C . W a s th e P re sen t C laim F a irl y P re sen ted in S tate C o u rt? H avi ng engage d i n t hi s anal y s i s , one mi ghts aythatM r . L ee r ai s ed the poi nti n t he se n ten c e o f

h is b rie f b e f o re th e W y o m in g S u p re m e C o u rt th a t sa id : T he hea r i ng atw hi ch the St at e s uppl ement ed the r ecor d, w i t h t he i ntr oduct i on of vague hear s ayevi dence , can notbe s ai d t o comportw i t h t he d u e p roc ess s tand ard s n ec essa ryto p rov e a ‘fa ct’ w h ich w o u ld tr iple M r. L e e ’s m a x im u m s e n te n c in g e x p o s u re . See, e. g. , Appr endiv. N ew Jer s ey , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2 3 4 8 (U . S . 2 0 0 0 ) (fu ll d u e p roc ess p rotec ti o n s ap p lyw ith reg ard to a n yf a c t w h ich c a n in c re a se a se n ten c e b e y o n d th e o th e rw ise a v a ilab le s ta tu to ry m a x im u m ). A pl ee. A pp. at29- 30. I n m yvi ew , how ever , M r . L ee’ s t enabl e Ap p re n d i cl ai m w as not fai r l ypr es ent ed t o t he W y om i ng Supr eme C our t . Y es , hi s br i ef c i t ed A ppr endi . A nd s om et i m es t he appl i cat i on of the doctr i ne s t at ed i n a pr ece denti s r eadi l yappar enti n t he cas e athand. B utt hi s i s nots uch a c as e. Par t i cul ar l ygi ven the r ece ntnes s of Appr endi , M r . L ee’ s br i ef ne eded t o as s i s tt he s t at e courti n s eei ng w hyi tappl i ed. Y etthe Appr endi r efe r ence w as bur i ed i n a di s cus s i on t hatappea r ed t o be addr es s i ng doubl e- j eopar dy p rin c ip les . M o re o v e r, th e q u o ted se n ten c e sa id n o th in g a b o u t th e sp e c if ic r e q u ire m e n ts i m p o s e d b y Ap

p re n d i— t h e j u r ya s f

a c tf i n d e ra n d p r o o f

b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . On the contr ary , t he r efe r ence i n t he s ent ence ci t i ng Appr endit o “vague hear s ayevi dence ” obs cur ed the ar gum entbys ugges t i ng t hati tw as the natur e of the evi dence pr es ent ed— r athert han the i dent i t yof the fa ctfi nderorthe bur den of pe r s uas i on— t hat- 10-

w as ats t ake. A nd t he “ e .g . ” i n t he “se e, e. g. ” ci t at i on s i gnal i s baff l i ng, s ugges t i ng a m or e gene r al poi ntt han Appr endi ’ s s peci fi c hol di ng. T he “f ai r l ypr es ent ” r equi r ementforexhaus t i on m us tbe under s t ood i n l i ghtof A E D PA ’ s appr oach t o fede r al col l at er al r evi ew of s t at e cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs . W e do not over turn a s t at e- courtdet erm i nat i on m er el ybeca us e w e w oul d rul e otherw i s e. T he d eterm ination m u st be u n rea so n ab le. S ec ti o n 2 2 5 4 (d) states tha t a st ate p ri so n er’s appl i cat i on forhabea s corpus w i l l notbe gr ant ed unl es s the s t at e- cour tdeci s i on w as “c o n tr aryto” S u p rem e C o u rtp rec ed en t ( w h ich w o u ld ce rt ainlyb e u n rea so n ab le), “i nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of” Supr eme C our tpr ece dent , or“w as bas ed on an u n re a so n a b le d e ter m in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted in th e S tate cour tpr ocee di ng. ” A nd w e mustbe eve n m or e def er ent i al w i t h r es pectt o fac tual f in d in g s— in a § 2 2 5 4 p ro c e e d in g “ a d e ter m in a tio n o f a f a c tu a l issu e m a d e b ya S tate co u rtsh all b e p resu m ed to b e c o rrect. ” § 2 2 5 4 (e). L ik e w ise , an a rg u m e n t n o t ad d re ss e d b yth e sta te c o u rt sh o u ld n o t b e c o n sid e re d to h a v e b e e n “ f

a irlyp re se n ted ” u n les s it w a s u n re a so n a b le f o r th e c o u rt to f

a il t o a p p re c iate thatthe ar gum enthad bee n m ade. Pr es ent i ng i s s ues t o a courti s nota game i n w hi ch an a p p e llan t ca n sc o re b ysa y in g ju st e n o u g h to a ler t a ju d g e w h o h a d u n lim ited tim e to s pecul at e on eve r ypos s i bl e i s s ue thatm i ghtbe unea r t hed i n t he br i ef. T he W y om i ng Supr eme C our t , as i t s opi ni on cl ear l yi ndi cat es , di d notper cei ve M r . L ee t o be maki ng t he Ap p re n d i cl ai m t hatI bel i eve t o have s ubs t ant i al m er i t . O n t he contr ary , the courtw as perpl exed byt he ci t at i on t o Appr endi . Y et no t on lyw as itn o t un rea so n ab le fo r th e c o u rt- 11-

t o m i s s t he poi nt( as s um i ng, perhaps contr aryt o fac t , thatM r . L ee’ s s t at e- cour tbr i ef actual l yi nt ended t o m ake the poi nt ) , butI ques t i on w hetherI w oul d have s een the poi nt m y se lf. A f

ter a ll, in th is c a se w e h a v e h a d th e b e n e f it o f h a v in g a lre a d yb e e n su b jec ted to a tw o -y ea r-l o n g b arrag e o f c h all en g es u n d er B l akel y v. W as hi ngt on , 5 4 2 U . S . 2 9 6 (20 0 4 ), and B oo ker t o s ens i t i ze us t o Ap p re n d i m att er s , as w el l as havi ng r ece i ved a be t t erbr i ef byM r . L ee on thi s i s s ue. I ndeed, i n or al ar gum entbefor e thi s cour t , M r . L ee’ s couns el a d m itte d th a t “ a t th e tim e th a t th is f ir s t c a m e th ro u g h th e [ W y o m in g ] S u p re m e C o u rt [ ,] . .

. t he s ubs equentcas es t o Ap p re n d i had notcome dow n s o m aybe i tw as uncl eart o t he W y om i ng Supr eme C our tand uncl eari n pos s i bl yhow i tw as r ai s ed. ” I w oul d hol d t hat M r. L ee has n ot exhau st ed h i s Ap p re n d i c laim in sta te c o u rt b e c a u se it w a s n o t f a irly p re se n ted to th e W y o m in g S u p re m e C o u rt. O n t he otherhand, t hi s pr ocedur al bari s farfr om obvi ous . B eca us e the det erm i nat i on w hethert o gr anta C O A “does notr equi r e ful l cons i der at i on of the fa ctual orl egal bas es addr es s ed i n s uppor tof the cl ai m , ” Mi l l e r - El , 537 U . S. at337, I w oul d have gr ant ed a CO A on M r . L ee’ s due- pr oces s cl ai m beca us e both t he mer i t s and the i s s ue of p ro c e d u ra l b a r a re a t le a s t d e b a ta b le , s ee Slack , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 8 4 . I I I . DI S P OS I TI ON OF THI S AP P EA L D eci di ng t hatM r . L ee ha d notexhaus t ed hi s s t at e- cour tr emedi es w oul d notend the mat t er . I tw oul d t hen be ne ces s aryt o r emand t o t he di s t r i ctcour tforfur t her p ro c e e d in g s. F irst, th e d istric t co u rt w o u ld n e e d to d e ter m in e w h e th e r it is still po ss ib le for M r. L ee t o p res ent hi s Ap p re n d i c laim in sta te c o u rt. If n o t, his c laim is d e e m e d to- 12-

h a v e b e e n e x h a u s te d b u t it is p ro c e d u ra lly d e f a u lte d . See Col em an v. Thom ps on , 501 U . S . 7 2 2 , 7 3 5 n . 1 (19 9 0 ). If the claim h as b ee n d ef au lt ed in state co u rt , the d istri ct co u rt m aygr antr el i ef onl yi f M r . L ee “ can de m ons t r at e ca us e and pr ej udi ce ora funda m ent al m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ” Thom as v. G i bs on , 218 F. 3d 1213, 1221 ( 10th C i r . 2000) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). I f, how ever , t her e i s s t i l l a pos s i bi l i t yof s t at e- cour tr el i ef, M r . L ee mustpur s ue th a t a v e n u e . In th a t e v e n t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o u ld d is m is s M r. L e e ’s § 2 2 5 4 c la im s . See R hi nes v. W

eber , 125 S. C t . 1528, 1532- 33 ( 2005) . B utan adve r s e cons equenc e of that appr oach i s t hatt hen he w oul d l i kel ybe barr ed fr om r eturni ng t o fede r al cour tbeca us e of A E D P A ’s o n e -ye a r s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s o n § 2 2 5 4 a p p lic a tio n s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 (d )( 1 ). A lth o u g h th e lim itatio n s p e rio d is to lled w h ile th e a p p lica n t p u rsu e s re lief in sta te c o u rt, s ee § 2 2 4 4 (d )( 2 ), f

e d e ra l- c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s d o n o t to ll th e lim ita tio n s p e ri o d , s ee R hines, 1 2 5 S . C t. at 15 3 3 . T h u s, if an ap p li ca n t’ s claim s are d ism issed b ythe f ed era l cou rt ( par t i cul ar l yi f the fe der al pr ocee di ngs have c ont i nued fora numberof m ont hs ) , he may w e ll lo s e f

o re v e r a n yc h a n c e f

o r f e d e ra l r e v ie w o f

th o s e c la im s . Id . T o avoi d s uch a r es ul t , fede r al cour t s on occa s i on have a dopt ed the pr ocedur e of s t ay i ng and aba t i ng t he habe as cl ai m . U nderthi s pr ocedur e a di s t r i ctcour ts t ay s the habea s appl i cat i on and hol ds i ti n abey ance w hi l e the appl i cantpur s ues the unexha us t ed c la im s in s ta te c o u rt . I

d. at1534. O nce the appl i cantexhaus t s s t at e- cour tr emedi es , t he d is tr ic t c o u rt w ill li f

t th e s ta ya n d a llo w th e a p p lic a n t to re tu rn to f e d e ra l c o u rt . Id . T he S u p re m e C o u rt re c e n tly a p p ro v e d th e p ra c tic e b u t s u b je c te d it to s tr ic t lim ita tio n s . Id . at- 13-

1535. T he pr ocedur e maybe us ed onl y“w hen the di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i nes ther e w as good caus e fort he pet i t i oner ’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus thi s cl ai m s fi r s ti n s t at e court ” and the unexhaus t ed cl ai m s ar e not“pl ai nl ym er i t l es s . ” Id . M r. L ee’s Ap p re n d i cl ai m i s not p lain lym e ritles s. T h e d istric t co u rt, h o w e v e r, is b e tter p o sitio n e d th a n th is c o u rt to det erm i ne w hethers t ay - and- abey ance i s appr opr i at e i n t hi s cas e, and i ts houl d be the tr i bunal t o addr es s t he mat t eri n t he fi r s ti ns t ance .