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, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

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

### F e b r u ary22,2007 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
LELYN EDW AR D B OD I NE,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 6264 v . (W .D . o f O k la .) THE W ARDEN OF J OSE P H HA RP CORRE CTI ONA L CE NTE R,

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D . C . N o . C V - 0 5 - 1 1 6 4 - M)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY * B efo re T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. **

L el yn B odi ne, an O kl ahoma st at e pr i s onerappea r i ng pro se , seeks a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty(C O A ) to c h a llen g e th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is p eti ti o n o f a w ri t of

h ab ea s co rpu s u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 . W e reject B o d ine’s re q u e s t fo r a C O A .T h e e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n ts o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 d o n o t re q u ire B o d in e to 1 s eek pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n s t at e courtpr i ort o fi l i ng hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on, pr ovi ded the s t at e courthad the opportuni tyt o rul e on the s ubs t ance of hi s fede r al claim . “[ O ]nc e the stat e c o u rt s h av e ru led u p o n a c lai m , itis no t nec essa ryfo r a pet i t i oner‘ t o as k t he s t at e forcol l at er al r el i ef, bas ed upon the s ame evi dence and i s s ues al r eadydeci ded bydi r ectr evi ew . ’ ” C as t i l l e v. P eopl es , 489 U . S. 346, 350 ( 1989) ( quot i ng B r ow n v. A l l en , 3 4 4 U . S . 4 4 3 , 4 4 8

– 4 9 n . 3 (19 5 3 )).

-2- I . Backg r ound A n O kl ahoma j ur yconvi ct ed B odi ne of e l even c ount s of Lew d A ct s w i t h a M i nor , and r ecomm ended he s erve the maxi m um 20- y earpr i s on t erm on eac h c o u n t . Ats e n t e n c i n g , t h e c o u r to r d e r e d Bo d i n e t o s e r v e a l l e l e v e n 2 0 - y e a rt e r ms cons ecut i vel y . O n di r ectappea l , B odi ne as s er t ed ni ne gr ounds forr el i ef, i ncl udi ng t he cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s he now br i ngs befor e thi s court . T he O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( O C C A ) aff i r m ed B odi ne’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence on di r ectappea l . B odi ne does notappea rt o have s oughtpos t - convi ct i on rel i ef i n the O klahom a st at e cou rt s. 1 B o d ine fil ed a p eti ti o n fo r a w ri t of h ab ea s co rpu s in the d istri ct co u rt a lleg in g th e fo llo w in g c laim s o f e rro r: (1 ) h is d ire c t ap p e a l w a s f u n d a m e n tally unfai r ; ( 2) t r i al couns el w as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o ques t i on the pr os ecut or abo ut the p rosecut or’ s i nterview s w i th the vi ct i m ; (3) dep ri vati on of d ue p rocess bas ed on tw o i ns t ance s of pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct

— m aki ng a fa l s e s t at ement befor e the j ur yand conc eal i ng pot ent i al l yexcul pat oryevi dence ; and ( 4) t he tr i al-3-

cour ti m perm i s s i bl yhad an ex p a rte comm uni cat i on w i th the j uryaft eri tr ender ed th e v e rd ic t b u t p ri o r t o s e n te n c in g . In its 1 6 -p a g e R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n , the m a g istra te ju d g e c a re f u lly r es ponded t o eac h of B odi ne’ s cl ai m s and conc l uded none c oul d s at i s fythe s t andar d of § 2254, w hi ch perm i t s a fe der al courtt o i s s ue a w r i tof habe as corpus onl yi f the s t at e adj udi cat i on 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 , ” orw as “bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence p re s e n te d in th e S ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )( 1 )– (2 ). II . A n a ly sis T hi s cour tm ayi s s ue a CO A i f a pe t i t i oner“has m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ); s ee Sl ack v . McD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) . W her e, as her e, t he di s tr i ctcourthas rejec ted th e c o n stitu tio n a l cla im o n th e m e rits, th e p e tit io n e r “ m u st d e m o n stra te t hatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s w oul d fi nd t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s as s es s m entof the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s debat abl e orw r ong. ” Id. C l ai m 1: D i r ectA ppeal w as a “M as k of I nj us t i ce” I n C l ai m 1, B odi ne l aunche s a bl anketatt ack on the manneri n w hi ch the O C C A rev iew ed h is direct ap p ea l, ca ll ing the w h o le pro ce ss “in ad eq u ate[ ], in e ffe c tiv e [ ], a n d u n m e a n in g f u l.” P e t. B ri e f

in S u p p o rto f

H a b e a s P e titio n a t 5 . W i t houtr el evantdet ai l , how ever , hi s gener al i zed s cr eed doe s nots t at e a-4-

cogni zabl e cl ai m forfede r al habea s r el i ef, w hi ch r equi r es a s how i ng that pet i t i oneri s bei ng hel d “i n cus t odyi n vi ol at i on of the C ons t i tut i on orl aw s or t r eat i es of the U ni t ed St at es . ” Knox v. W yom i ng D ep’ tof

C or r ect i ons , 34 F. 3d 9 6 4 , 9 6 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (cit ing 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (a)). C l ai m 2: I neffect i ve A s s i s t ance of C ouns el B odi ne nextcl ai m s i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el on the gr ounds that defe ns e couns el fai l ed t o r es pond t o the pr os ecut or ’ s cl os i ng ar gum enti n w hi ch sh e n o ted tw o in ter v iew s w ith th e se v e n -y e a r o ld v ictim in th e c a se . A c c o rd in g to B od i ne, defe nse cou nsel shou l d h ave “im m ediat el ycal l ed the prosecut i on as a w i t nes s en ca m er a t o del ve i nt o heri nt ervi ew s w i th [the vi ct i m ] , as w el l as di s coveranyand al l vi deo/ audi o r ecor di ngs and a l i s tof ques t i ons as ked and r es pons es gi ven. ” Pet . B r i ef i n Suppor tof C O A at22. B odi ne’ s theoryi s thatt he p rio r in ter v iew s w e re lik e lyto h a v e tain ted th e c h ild ’s te stim o n ya t trial. T he O C C A r evi ew ed thi s and otheral l egat i ons of i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of t r i a l c o u n s e l u n d e rt h e s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d b y Str i ckland v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U. S. 6 6 8 (19 8 4 ). T o p rev ail u n d er Str i ckland , B o d in e w a s re q u ire d to sh o w b o th caus e— t hatcouns el ’ s per form ance fel l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s — and pr ej udi ce— thatbutforthe couns el ’ s err or , the out come of th e trial w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. T h e O C C A c o n c lu d e d th a t B o d in e fa iled to m a k e e ith e r s h o w in g .-5-

W e agr ee w i t h t he magi s t r at e j udge thatthe O C C A ’ s deni al of r el i ef on B o d in e ’s in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e c laim n e ith e r re su lted in a d e c isio n c o n tra ryto c lea rlye sta b lish e d F e d e ra l law , n o r w a s it b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed. N o evi dence w as pr es ent ed thatt he vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m onyw as t ai nt ed bythe pr os ecut orand the d e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’ s a l l e g e d fa i l u r e t o p r o b e mo r e d e e p l yi n t o th e a l l e g e d i n t e r v i e ws d o e s n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f o bje c tiv e u n re a s o n a b le n e s s a s a tr ia l ta c tic . Par t i cul ar l yi f couns el fel ti thad nothi ng t o gai n fr om cal l i ng the pr os ecut oras “a w itn e ss e n c a m e ra ,” w e c a n n o t sa yc o u n se l’s c o n d u c t w a s o bjec tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . C l ai m 3: Pr os ecut or i al M i s conduct B odi ne’ s t hi r d cl ai m i s t hatthe pr os ecut or ’ s m i s conducti n tw o i ns t ance s depr i ved hi m of the r i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al i n vi ol at i on of due pr oces s . Fi r s t , he al l eges t he pr os ecut i on m ade a fal s e s t at ementt o the j uryw hi ch i n effect“ca l l [ed] defe ns e couns el a l i ar . ” Pet . B r i ef i n Suppor tof H abea s Pet i t i on at27. T he p arti cu lar ex ch an g e B o d ine re fe rs t o is l aid o u t i n fu ll in the m ag istrate jud g e’s R epor t . T he pr os ecut orw as r es pondi ng t o defe ns e couns el ’ s cr os s - exami nat i on of t he for ens i c i nt ervi ew erw ho m ent i oned a pol i ce r eportauthor ed byO ffi cerK athy D odd, w ho had pr evi ous l yi nt ervi ew ed the vi ct i m i n the ca s e: D E FE N SE C O U N SE L : I s thatthe one w her e [O ffi cerD odd] t erm i nat ed the in terview w ith [th e v ic tim ] be ca u se [ the v ict im ] w as u sing m o re a d v a n c e d ter m in o lo g y , th a t sh e fe lt lik e so m e b o d y lik e h e rse lf m ig h t —-6-

PR O SE C U T O R : Y ourH onor , for heave n’ s s ake, thati s abs ol ut el yfal s e. I cannoti m agi ne — m ayw e appr oach? T H E C O U R T : W ai t , w ai t , w ai t . Set t l e dow n. C om e up. T . T r ans cr i ptat168–69. O uts i de the heari ng of the j ury , the p rosecut or t old the judge defe nse co u n sel w as p u tt ing fa lse i n fo rm ati o n b efo re the juryb ec au se O fficer D o d d ’s r epor tdi d noti ncl ude the s t at ement s defe ns e couns el al l eged. Y et , a port i on of O ffi cerD odd’ s r epor tdi d s t at e: T he [vi ct i m ] w as r epea t i ng w ords the [r eport i ng per s on] w oul d us e or an adul tw oul d us e i n r efe r ence to the crim e, s o I as ked no further q u esti o n s so d etec ti v es c o u ld d o an interview o f th e [ v ict im ]. Pet . A pp. , C r i m e R epor tat75–76. W hi l e the tr i al courtul t i m at el ys us t ai ned the pr os ecut or ’ s obj ect i on, i tdi d t el l defe ns e couns el i tw oul d cons i deradmi t t i ng Off i c e rDod d ’ s r e p o r ti n t o e v i d e n c e i f c o u n s e l l a i d th e p r o p e rfo u n d a t i o n . T. T r ans cr i ptat170. D efe ns e couns el m ade no f ur theratt empt t o i ntr oduce O ffi cer D odd’ s r epor ti nt o evi dence , w hi ch l ed the O C C A t o det erm i ne that“further c o n s id e ra tio n o f

th e e rr o r i s w a iv e d .” O C C A O p . a t 6 . F o r p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t to rise to th e lev e l en tit lin g p e tit io n e r to fede r al habea s r el i ef, i tm us tei t herhave vi ol at ed a s peci fi c cons t i tut i onal r i ght , or “s o i nfec t ed the tr i al w i t h unfai r nes s as t o m ake the r es ul t i ng convi ct i on a deni al of due pr oces s . ” D on nell y v. D eC hristoforo , 416 U . S. 637, 643 ( 1974) . T he m a g istra te ju d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e lim ited sta tem e n t o f th e p ro se c u to r w ith inB o d in e f u rth e r a rg u e s th is fa ilu re w a s a n a d d iti o n a l b a sis fo r h is 2 i neffect i ve assi st ance o f cou nsel cl ai m , bu tw e can n ei ther second -guess defen se couns el ’ s t r i al s t r at egynorcan w e conc l ude thatt he out come of t r i al w oul d have b e e n d iffe re n t h a d d e fe n s e c o u n s e l s o u g h t a d m is s io n o f O ffic e r D o d d ’s re p o rt . M or eover , t he O C C A ful l yaddr es s ed al l of B odi ne’ s cl ai m s of i neffect i ve assistan ce u n d er Str i cklandand w e ca nnots ayt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s endor s ementof th e O C C A a n a lysis w o u ld b e d e b a ta b le a m o n g ju ri s ts o f re a s o n . -7- ear s hotof the j ur y , namel yhercl ai m thatdefe ns e couns el ’ s i nfer ence r egar di ng O ffi cerD odd’ s r epor tw as “abs ol ut el yfal s e, ” di d notr es ul ti n vi ol at i on of due pr oces s pert he s t andar d s etfor t h i n D o n n e lly . W e agr ee. I ti s i m pl aus i bl e that t he j ur yw oul d have be en part i cul ar l ym oved bythi s br i ef s t at ementi n a l engthy trial f u ll o f e m o tio n a llyc h a rg e d iss u e s a n d tes tim o n y . M o re o v e r, w e a g re e w ith t he O C C A t hatdefe ns e couns el w ai ved furthercons i der at i on of the i s s ue i n l i ght o f h is fa ilu re to se e k a d m iss io n o f O ffice r D o d d ’s r e p o rt. 2 B o d in e f

u rth e r a lleg e s th e p ro se c u to r’s fa ilu re to p ro v id e p o ten tially e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e to d e fe n se c o u n se l im p e rm iss ib ly“ in fe c ted th e trial w ith unfai r nes s ” i n vi ol at i on of D o n n e lly . B o d ine re fe rs t o the fac t th at th e v ict im ’s b iolog ical m o ther a n d h er fianc é w ere ch arg ed w ith ch il d ab u se o f th e v ict im ’s b ro th e r. H e c laim s th e p ro se c u tio n w a s o b lig a ted to p ro v id e th e d e fe n se w ith not i ce of

t hes e cha r ges i n keepi ng w i th B r ady v. Mar yland , 3 7 3 U . S . 8 3 (19 6 3 ), w h ic h h e ld th a t th e S ta te ’s s u p p re s s io n o f “ e v id e n c e fa v o ra b le to a n a c c u s e d . . . viol at es due p rocess w h e re th e e v id e n c e is m a ter ia l eith e r to g u ilto r to punis hm ent . ” Id. a t 8 7 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).-8-

W e have hel d t hati n or dert o es t abl i s h a B r ady vi ol at i on forpurpos es of fede r al habea s r el i ef, a pet i t i onerm us ts how : ( 1) the pr os ecut ors uppr es s ed the evi dence ; ( 2) t he evi dence w as favor abl e t o the defendantas excul pat oryor im p e a c h m e n t e v id e n c e ; a n d (3 ) t h e e v id e n c e w a s m a te ri a l. Knight on v. Mul l i n, 2 9 3 F .3 d 1 1 6 5 , 1 1 7 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e m a g istra te ju d g e w a s c a re f u l to n o te t hat , w hi l e defens e couns el w as perhaps notaw ar e thatcr i m i nal char ges had bee n fi l ed aga i ns tt he vi ct i m ’ s m ot her , he w as aw ar e of the fa ctual ci r cumst ance s g iv in g rise to th e c h a rg e s a n d h a d a n o p p o rtu n ityto e x a m in e th e m o th e r a s to t hos e ci r cumst ance s . Speci fi cal l y , i tbeca m e know n attr i al thats oci al s ervi ces rem o v ed the v ict im an d h er b roth er f rom their m o ther’s c are af ter th e v ict im ’s b r o t h e rs u ffe r e d a b r o k e n l e g . Wh i l e Bo d i n e a r g u a b l ys a t i s fi e s th e fi r s ttwo pr ongs of B r ady , w e agr ee w i t h t he magi s tr at e j udge thatthe evi dence di d not sa tisf yth e m a ter ialityre q u ire m e n t o f p ro n g th re e : “S u c h e v id e n c e is m a ter ial if t her e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t ythat , had the evi dence been di s cl os ed t o the defe ns e, t he r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” Str i cklerv. G r eene , 5 2 7 U .S . 2 6 3 , 2 8 0 (1 9 9 9 ). G i ven thatthe j ur yw as appr i s ed of the r el evantfac t s under l y i ng the char ges agai ns tt he vi ct i m ’ s m ot herand herfi ancé , w e ca nnots ee how the out come of t he tr i al w oul d have be en di ffe r enti f addi t i onal evi dence of the fo rm a l c h a rg e s a g a in s t th e m h a d b e e n in tr o d u c e d .-9-

C l ai m 4: J udi ci al M i s conduct A s hi s fi nal cl ai m forr el i ef, B odi ne ar gues thatthe j udge enga ged i n an i m perm i s s i bl e ex p a rte comm uni cat i on w i th s om e of the j ur or s aft erthe ver di ct w a s e n te re d b u t b e fo re th e c o u rt is s u e d its s e n te n c e . B yw ayof bac kgr ound, i n O kl ahoma, the j ur yi s al l ow ed t o r ecomm end a s ent ence aft ert he l i abi l i t yphas e of tr i al . 22 O kl a. St . A nn. § 926. 1. H er e, the j ur yfound B odi ne gui l t yon el even c ount s of chi l d m ol es t at i on “i n l es s than an hour ” and r ecomm ended a s ent ence of the maxi m um tw entyy ear s . Pet . A pp. at 1 8 6 . B o d ine c lai m s the tr ial co u rtim p erm issi b lyco m m u n icated w ith the ju ry pr i ort o s ent enci ng. A s evi dence of thi s comm uni cat i on, B odi ne quot es the fol l ow i ng s t at ementt he pr os ecut orm ade a tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng: PR O SE C U T O R : T hi s j ur y rec o m m ended 20 y ear s w hi ch i s al l they c o u ld d o o n e v e ry c o u n t. A nd they told this C our taf t er w ar ds thatthey m e a n t 2 2 0 y e a rs w h e n th ey sa idit . P e t. A p p . a t 1 8 7 . In suppo rtof h i s content i on t hat the co m m un i cat i on viol at ed d ue p rocess , B odi ne ci t es t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n R u sh e n v . S p a in , 464 U . S. 114 ( 1983) . I n R us hen , t he Supr eme C our tr evi ew ed al l egat i ons of w r ongful comm uni cat i ons betw een a j ur yand j udge dur i ng the l i abi l i typhas e of a 17- m ont h t r i al . W hi l e ac know l edgi ng t hatt he ac cus ed has a “r i ghtt o per s onal pr es ence atal l cr i t i cal s t ages of the tr i al and the r i ghtt o couns el , ” 464 U . S. atI n R us hen , dur i ng t he cour s e of tr i al t he courtengage d i n an ex p a rte 3 comm uni cat i on w i t h a j ur oraboutt he j ur or ’ s r ece nt l yr ecove r ed mem or yof the m ur derof an a cquai nt ance w hen s he w as a chi l d. T he defendanti n thatcas e w as convi ct ed. O n appea l , t he fe der al courtof appe al s overturned the convi ct i on bas ed on i t s concl us i on t hatan ex par t e co m m u n icati o n b etw ee n jud g e a n d jury can ne veramount t o harm l es s err or . T he Supr eme C our tdi s agr eed, concl udi ng s u c h c o m m u n ic a tio n s c o u ld b e re v ie w e d fo r h a rm le s s e rr o r. R us hen , 464 U . S. at 118–19. -10- 117, t he C our tconcl uded thatanycomm uni cat i on betw een the tr i al j udge and a j uror w as harm l ess: 3 T h is i s n o t to sa yth a t ex par t e comm uni cat i ons betw een j udge and j ur or ar e never of s er i ous conce rn or thata fe der al courton habea s m aynever over t ur n a convi ct i on for pr ej udi ce r esult ing fr om s uch comm uni cat i ons . W hen an ex p a rte c o mmu n i c a t i o n r e l a t e s t o s o me as pectof the tr i al , t he tr ial judge gener al l ys houl d di s cl os e the c o m m u n ic a tio n to c o u n s e l fo r a ll p a rt ie s . 4 6 4 U .S . a t 1 1 9

– 1 2 0 . W e have r evi ew ed R us hen t ype clai m s sever al t i m es befo re. In tho se cases, w e obs erved that“i f the ex par t e c o m m u n ica tio n b e tw e e n a ju ro r a n d ju d g e is i m pr oper , w e w i l l pr es um e pr ej udi ce unl es s t he pr os ecut i on can r ebutt he pr es um pt i on bys how i ng t hatt he comm uni cat i on di d notpr ej udi ce the s ubs t ant i al r i ght s of the defendant . ” Sm al lw ood v. G i bs on , 1 9 1 F . 3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 7 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). See als o Uni t ed Stat es v. C ar t er , 9 7 3 F . 2 d 1 5 0 9 , 1 5 1 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ); Un itedS ta tes v . McD o n a ld , 933 F. 2d 1519, 1524 ( 10th C i r . 1991) . W e have not des cr i bed i n det ai l w hatcons t i tut es an “i m pr oper ” comm uni cat i on betw een j udge an d jury . B u t w e h av e, ho w ev er, i d en ti fied sev era l spe cific fac t si tuation s w h ere s u c h c o m m u n ic a tio n m a yb e d e e m e d p ro p e r. See , e. g. , Sm al lw ood , 191 F. 3d atW hetheran ex p a rte c o m m u n i c a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n p r ej u d i c e i s t yp i c a l l y a 4 q u e s tio n o f

h is to ri c a l fa c t e n title d to d e fe re n c e o n re v ie w . See , e. g. , C r eas e v. McKune , 189 F. 3d 1188, 1193–94 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng R us hen , 464 U . S. at 1 2 0 ). H o w ev er, th e O C C A in this ca se flat lyd en ied th e e x ist en ce o f re co rd evi dence s ugges t i ng an ex par t e comm uni cat i on: “[W ] e fi nd not hi ng i n the a p p e llate re c o rd to su p p o rt [ B o d in e ’s] a rg u m e n t th e p ro se c u to r m e t ex p a rte w ith t he j udge and j ur or s aft ert he r eturn of the ver di ct . ” O C C A O p. at6. T he m agi s t r at e j udge found thi s s t at ement“puzz l i ng beca us e i tappea r s t hata copyof t he tr ans cr i ptof the s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng w as partof the r ecor d befor e the O C C A .” M a g . J . R & R a t 1 2 . -11- 1 2 7 9

– 8 0 (c o n c lu d in g th a t “th e re is n o th in g in h e re n tlyd istu rb in g o r p reju d icia l in a ju ro r su b m itt in g a q u e stio n o r re q u e st to th e c o u rt,” p a rticu lar lyw h e re b o th side s w ere ap p ri sed o f th e c o n tent o f th e n o te an d the ju d g e d id n o t r esp o n d ). 4 T he magi s t r at e j udge ther efor e ana l y zed Bodi ne’ s j udi ci al m i s conduct cl ai m byas ki ng w hethert he ex par t e comm uni cat i on t ook pl ace dur i ng a “c r i t i cal s t age” att r i al . W hi l e not i ng t he Supr eme C our thas hel d thats ent enci ng p ro c e e d in g s c o n s titu te s u c h a c ri tic a l s ta g e , Mempa v. R hay , 389 U . S. 128, 133–34 ( 1967) , t he magi s t r at e j udge neve r thel es s concl uded the comm uni cat i on at i s s ue i n B odi ne’ s cas e di d notoccurata cr i t i cal s t age: I n t hi s cas e, t he tr i al court ’ s chal l enged ex par t e c o m m u n ica tio n w ith t he j ur yt ook pl ace aft erPet i t i onerw as convi cted , afte rthe j ur yhad rec o m m en d ed the m ax im u m sen tenc e fo r ea ch o ffen se, af ter th e ju ry h a d c o mpl e t e d i t s d u t i e s , a n d wel l b e fo r e Pe t i t i o n e r ’ s s e n t e n ce w as i m pos ed. M a g . J . R & R a t 1 4 .A l t hough t he pr os ecut orm ent i oned the comm uni cat i on betw een the tr i al 5 cour tand the j ur y , not hi ng s ugges t s t hatt he defens e couns el actual l yw as not pr es ent . M or eover , defe ns e couns el m ade no obj ect i on ats ent enci ng on t he g r o u n d s t h a tt h e j u d g e w a s i m p r o p e r l y i n fl u e n c e d b y th e j u ry. U nderO kl ahoma l aw , t he s ent enci ng j udge det erm i nes w hethers ent ence s 6 ar e conc ur r entorcons ecut i ve. 22 O kl a. St at . A nn. § 976. -12- W e agr ee. I ti s obvi ous t he comm uni cat i on— even i f ex p a rte

— occurr ed a f ter th e ju ry h a d c o n c lu d e d its d e lib e ra tio n s a n d h a d b e e n d isc h a rg e d . A n d a s is 5 f re q u e n tly th e c a s e in d is c h a rg in g a ju ry th e re m a yb e s o m e re fe re n c e to th e c a s e . B utt he tr i al j udge has t he ul t i m at e r es pons i bi l i tyt o i m pos e the s ent ence , and the se n ten c in g tra n sc rip t ab u n d a n tlym a k e s c lea r th a t th e ju d g e u n d e rto o k h is s ent enci ng obl i gat i on i ndepende nt l yand on the r ecor d. I n fac t , t he courts t at ed 6 ats ent enci ng: T H E C O U R T : T h e re a re c a se s th a t th is C o u rt h a s h e a rd th a t sh o c k th is cons ci ous [s i c] . B ut t he vi ol ence one does t o a chi l d and th e v iolen ce t hatt hatchi l d w i l l have t o l i ve w i th for the rest o f herl i fe, as I have said o n m o re tha n o n e o c c asio n , w e c an o n lyh o p e tha t she ca n w o rk t hr ough i t . B uts he w i l l be i n pr i s on forthe r es tof herl i fe be cause of y ou r act i on s. M s . Pope i s corr ect , the jury found gui l ton y ourpar ton eac h and e v e ry o n e [ sic ] of

th e se c o u n ts in a v e rysh o rt tim e . T h e yh a d v e rylittle

– th e y h a d , I c a n sa y , n o d o u b t a s to th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted b yth e S tate of O kl ahoma i n t hi s cas e. Fort hos e r eas ons all o f these c as es w i l l be o r d e r e d t o s e r v e c o n s e c u t i v e l y. P e t. A p p . a t 1 8 8 . In su m , ev en if th e jud g e h ad an im p rop er ex par t e comm uni cat i on w i th t he j u r y , a n ye r r o rwa s h a r ml e s s . Ac c o r d i n g l y , Bo d i n e c a n n o ts h o w t h a tt h e OCCA-13-

u n rea so n ab lyap p li ed S u p rem e C o u rtlaw . W e thu s ag ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt t hata C O A i s notw arr ant ed on thi s i s s ue. I I I . C oncl usi on F o rt h e r e a s o n s s e tfo r t h a b o v e we d e n yBo d i n e ’ s r e q u e s tfo ra CO A. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge