2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-23-2005 

# Minett v . H e ndricks P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-3456

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Mine tt v . H e ndr ick s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 973. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/973T hi s cas e w as s ubm i t t ed t o t he pane l of j udges R oth, C her t off, and Shapi r o. J udge * * * C h e rto f f re sig n e d a f

ter su b m iss io n , b u t b e f

o re th e f ili n g o f th e o p in io n . T h e d e c isio n is fil ed b ya q u o rum o f th e p an el. 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 6 (d). H onor abl e N or m a L. Shapi r o, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct ** C our tforthe East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o: 03- 3456 J AM ES M I NETT,

A p p e llan t, v. R O Y L . H E N D R I C K S, A dm i ni s t r at or N ew J er s eySt at e Pr i s on; A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F NEW J ERSEY

___________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 01- cv- 03548 D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le W ill iam H . W a lls

____________________ A r gued J anuary11, 2005 Bef or e : RO TH a nd CH ER TO FF, C i r cui tJudges , a n d S HAP I RO , D is tr i ct Judge . * * *2

J ean D . B arr ett , E s q. ( A r gued) D avi d A . R uhnke, E s q. RU HN KE & BA RRETT 47 Par k St r eet M ont cl ai r , N J 07042 C ouns el f orAppel l ant Pet erC . H arvey , E s q. A t t orneyG ener al of N ew J er s ey K r i s t en M . H arber g ( A r gued) D eputyA t t or neyG ener al D i vi s i on of C r i m i nal J us t i ce A ppel l at e B ur eau 25 M arketSt r eet P. O . B ox 086 T r ent on, N J 08625 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

____________________ OP I NI ON S H A P IR O , D is tr i ct

Judge . A p p e llan t Ja m e s M in e tt (“M in e tt”) a p p e a ls f ro m th e d istric t co u rt d e n ial o f h is p e titio n f o r w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . I . F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY M i net tw as convi ct ed i n N ew J er s eys t at e courtof m ur der - for - hi r e and c ons pi r acy t o comm i tm ur der . A tt r i al , a w i t nes s forthe pr os ecut i on m ade a n uns ol i ci t ed s t at ement thatM i netthad s pentt i m e i n pr i s on fora gun convi ct i on. T he tr i al j udge s t ruck the test im o n y , g av e li m it ing instruction s to the jury , an d d en ied M inett’ s m o ti o n s fo r a m i s tr i al . M i nett , appea l i ng hi s convi ct i on i n s t at e court , ar gued thatl i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i ons3

co u ld n o t cure the p rejud ice f rom the im p erm issi b le t esti m o n y . M inett’ s state co u rt a p p e a ls f a ile d , a n d h e f

ile d a p e titio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 in f e d e ra l d is tr ic t c o u rt . M i net t ’ s s ol e cl ai m i s t hatt he tr i al cour tvi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al underthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed M i net t ’ s pet i t i on b ec au se h e f

ail ed to ex h au st his claim in state co u rt . A t i ssu e is w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt e rre d in f in d in g f a ilu re to e x h a u st, a n d if so , w h e th e r M in e tt’s c laim h a s m e rit. M i net t ’ s convi ct i on ar os e outof the murde rof H ol l yJ o D es ch i n N ew J er s ey , on February11, 1995. M s . D es ch w as s hotatcl os e r ange i n t he bac k of the hea d. A tthe t i m e, M i net tw as i n t he hos pi t al . C har l es W ar d confe s s ed t o the s hoot i ng and t es t i fi ed thatM i netthi r ed hi m t o ki l l M s . D es ch for$10, 000. W ar d pl eade d gui l t yt o aggr avat ed m a n sla u g h ter a n d u n law f u l p o ss e ss io n o f

a w e a p o n , an d w a s s e n ten c e d to 3 5 y e a rs w ith el i gibi l i tyfor parol e i n 1 71⁄2 y ears . T he pr os ecut orar gued M i net thad bee n havi ng a s even- y earaff ai rw i t h M s . D es ch o f wh i c h M i n e t t ’ s wi f

e wa s a wa r e . Co n f

r o n t a t i o n s b e t we e n th e two wo me n b e c a me v io len t at tim e s. Jo se p h L e a th e rs, a n a c q u a in tan c e , tes tifie d M in e tt t o ld h im a b o u t h is p ro b le m s w ith M s . D e s c h a n d a s k e d h im n u m e ro u s tim e s to f in d s o m e o n e to k ill h e r. W ard also test ifi ed M inett r ep ea tedlyask ed h im to f ind so m eo n e to k il l M s. D esc h . W ard t es t i fi ed thathe eve ntual l yagr eed t o comm i tthe murde rhi m s el f, and thatM i net tas ked him t o m ake the shoo t i ng l oo k li ke an at t em pted r ob beryatthe laund rom atw here M s. D es ch w or ked. A ccor di ng t o W ar d, M i net ts uppl i ed hi m w i t h t he gun and bul l et s . A ft er4

the murde r , one of M i nett ’ s fr i ends w arned hi m the pol i ce w er e l ooki ng forhi m ; he fl ed t o Fl or i da, w her e he l i ved undera fa l s e name unt i l he w as arr es t ed i n D ece m ber , 1995. M i net t ’ s defe ns e w as t hatW ar d ki l l ed M s . D es ch i n a r obberyat t empt , and the p o lice , k n o w in g o f

M in e tt’s tro u b les w ith D e sc h , su g g e ste d th e m u rd e r-f o r-h ire th e o ryto W ar d dur i ng t hei ri nt err ogat i on of hi m . T he pol i ce ne verl ocat ed the gun. T he pr os ecut i on pr es ent ed no phy s i cal evi dence connec t i ng M i net tt o t he cr i m e. T he p rose cu ti o n ’s ca se d ep en d ed h ea v il yo n the testi m o n yo f W ard an d L ea thers. W ard ’s s t orycont ai ned i ncons i s t enci es , i ncl udi ng hi s s t at ement s aboutw hen he obt ai ned the gun fr om M i net t . L eather s cl ai m ed attr i al thathe w as unaw ar e of a n appl i cat i on for im m u n ity o n h is b e h a lf. D ur i ng t he pr os ecut i on’ s di r ectexami nat i on of Leather s aboutM i net t ’ s tr oubl es w i th M s . D es ch, L eather s m ade a n i nadmi s s i bl e s t at ementthatM i net thad s erved t i m e for a fi r earm s convi ct i on: Q : D i d he eve rt al k t o y ou aboutthe ki nd of r el at i ons hi p t hathe had? A : W e l l , s h e c r e a t e d p r o b l e ms f o rh i m. Q : D i d he t el l y ou aboutanym or e pr obl ems, bes i des of cour s e the m o to rc y c le a c c id e n t? A : W el l , I know he had - - I know fr om exper i ence thathe w entt o – he had, he s erved t i m e fora gun. S u p p . A p p . a t 2 ,0 5 5 . T h e tr ia l ju d g e im m e d ia te ly sta te d , “ T h a t c o m m e n t is to ta lly str u c k . J ur yi s t o di s r egar d s ame t ot al l y . N ext . ” I d.5

M i net t ’ s couns el t ol d t he j udge he i nt ended t o m ove fora mi s t r i al . T he j udge gave a l i m i t i n g i n s t ru c t i o n t o t h e j u r y: W e have hear d fr om M r . L eather s cert ai n t es t i m onythatthe def endantm ay h a v e h a d so m e c o n tac t w ith c rim in a l sy ste m [ sic ] b e f o re th is c a se . E v e n if true, t hati s notcompet entevi dence i n t hi s r oom aboutthi s cas e. T he i s s ue befor e y ou i s t he conduc t ed [s i c] of thi s gent l eman on t hes e fa ct s befor e y ou i n thi s r oom . N ot hi ng el s e. T h a t issu e w a s, th a t sta tem e n t b yth is g e n tlem a n w a s s tru c k b ym e . N o w , to be st ruck from t he record m eans t he fo l l ow i ng : N o o ne ex pects y ou t o erase i tfr om y ourm emory . B uty ou m us tr emem bernott o us e the s t ruck pi ece of evi dence t o deci de the ca s e i n anyw ay . A nyt hi ng l es s w oul d m ean y ou w oul d notbe doi ng y ourj ob pur s uantt o y ouroath. I d. a t 2 ,0 9 7 . M inett did n o t object t o the in stru cti o n , an d the c ross -ex am ination resu m ed . In m o v in g late r f

o r a m istria l, he a rg u e d ju ro rs w o u ld b e u n a b le to ig n o re th e in a d m iss ib le s t at ement , t o hi s i r r epar abl e pr ej udi ce. T he pr os ecut orr es ponded thats he di d not i nt ent i onal l yel i ci tt he s t at ementfr om L eather s , buttr i ed t o s t op hi m fr om m aki ng i t ; s he c la im e d a lim itin g in s tru c tio n w ith v o ird ir e w o u ld b e s u f f ic ie n t. T h e ju d g e d e n ied th e m o tio n f o r a m istria l b e c a u se th e ju ro rs a p p e a re d to acknow l edge a nd under s t and hi s l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on: T h ese p eo p le ha v e b ee n w ith u s fo r ab o u t tw o w ee k s. T h eyh av e b ee n v ery at t ent i ve, and per s onal l y , I upon t el l i ng them t he s econd t i m e theycoul d not us e a pi ece of i nform at i on, t heyw er e l ooki ng atm e l i ke theyunder s t ood w hatw as goi ng on her e i n t erm s of thatpos i t i on. I d. a t 2 ,2 1 1 . T h e d e f

e n se , fe a rin g it w o u ld h ig h lig h t th e sta tem e n t an d p re ju d ice M in e tt fu rth er, de cli n ed to req u est a v o ird ir e. Instead , M inett ask ed the ju d g e f o r a “ v ery , v eryI n B r ut on , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hata tr i al cour t ’ s l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on cannotcur e 1 vi ol at i on of a de fenda nt ’ s Si xt h A m endmentr i ghtt o confr ont at i on w hen a non- t es t i fy i ng c o -d e f e n d a n t’s c o n f

e ss io n im p lica tes th e d e f e n d a n t. 6 s tr ong gener al i ns t ruct i on aboutt he s i gni fi canc e of s t r i ki ng t es t i m ony . ” Id . at2, 221. T he j udge found Leather s ’ s s t at ementw as noti nt ent i onal l yel i ci t ed bythe pr os ecut or , butw as th e re su lt o f

L e a th e rs’ s “ lac k o f

sm a rts.” H e a g a in sta ted th e ju ryse e m e d re sp o n siv e to his i nst ruct i on s: [T]he yunder s t ood m e qui t e cl ear l yon bot h occa s i ons . T heyhave ha d good e y e c o n ta c t w ith m e th e e n tir e tim e . T h e yh a d g o o d e y e c o n ta c t yes te rd a y . N o ques t i on aboutt hati n m ym i nd. I d. at2, 222. I n char gi ng t he j ur y , t he j udge i s s ued anotherl i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on: N o one expe ct s y ou t o er as e fr om y ourm emorya s t at ementthatI s t ruck fr om t he r ecor d. T hati s notpos s i bl e. B uty ou m us tr emem berthaty ou c a n n o t u se th a t p iec e o f in f o rm a tio n to d e c id e th is c a se in a n yw a yo r to d i s c u s s i ta ta l l i n t h a tr o o m. I d. at2, 369. T h e j u r y c o n v i c t e d M i n e t t , b u tu n a n i m o u s l y d e c l i n e d t o i m p o s e th e d e a t h p e n a l ty. M i net tw as s ent ence d t o l i fe i n pr i s on w i t h a thi r t y - y earper i od of par ol e i nel i gi bi l i t y , and a cons ecut i ve fi ve- y ears ent ence forunl aw ful pos s es s i on of a ha ndgun w i t h a tw o- ando n e - h a l f - ye a rp e r i o d o f

p a r o l e i n e l i g i b i l i t y. M inett m o v ed fo r a n ew tr ial b ase d o n the in cu rab il ityo f p rejud ice f rom L ea thers’s s t at ement . T he mot i on ci t ed the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment , and a footnot e ci t ed B r ut on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 391 U . S. 123 ( 1968) t o ar gue thatl i m i t i ng 17

i ns truct i ons ar e notal w ay s eff ect i ve. T h e trial c o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n . T h e ju d g e f o u n d th e ju ryd id n o t re a c t to L e a th e rs’ s s tate m e n t: I w i l l as s um e thatt heyhear d i tbeca us e I hear d i t , and y ou hear d i t , and the St at e hea r d i t . T heyhear d i t . A s theyhear d i t , though, I di dn’ ts ee a ny r eac t i on byanybodyup t her e, truthful l y . N ow , thi s i s a j urythathas r eac t ed o n o th e r p e o p le . W h e n M rs . M in e tt te s tif ie d , th e re w a s [ s ic ] a lo t o f n o d s , a l otof know i ng l ooks t ow ar ds eac h other . I di dn’ ts ee a nyof thatthi ng w hen thi s s t at ementoccurr ed. T hi s w as a verys hor ts t at ementbya man – t he St at e i s r i ghti n t hatthe man had a s out hern dr aw l and w as notover l yl oud, butthatdoes n’ tm ean they di dn’ thear . T her e w er e no nods bythe j ury , no gas ps . N one of thos e thi ngs y ou can s ayt heyw er e as t ounded byw hattheyhear d. Y ou don’ tknow w hat th e yth o u g h t. N o o n e c a n tell y o u th a t. S u p p . A p p . at 2 ,4 3 1 -3 2 . T h e ju d g e re p e a ted th a t th e ju ryu n d e rsto o d a n d f o llo w e d h is li m it ing instruction s. H e a lso stated the a d m issi b le po rt ion s o f L ea thers’s testi m o n yw ere lik e lym o re d a m a g in g to M in e tt th a n o n e in a d m iss ib le s tate m e n t. M i net tappea l ed hi s convi ct i ons t o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on of the N ew J er s ey S u p erior C o u rt . H is ap p ea l w as b ase d in p art on the in ad m issi b il ityo f th e L ea thers s t at ementunders t at e rul es of evi dence and Stat e v. B r uns on , 6 2 5 A .2 d 1 0 8 5 (N .J . 1 9 9 3 ). In the co nclusi on t o h i s bri ef, M i netti nv ok ed h i s fai r tri al ri gh t s und er the D ue P rocess C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment . H e ci t ed B r ut on tw i ce t o s uppor thi s cl ai m that l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i ons ar e notal w ay s eff ect i ve. T he appe l l at e court , r el y i ng excl us i vel yon s ta te la w p ri n c ip le s a n d c a s e s , d e n ie d M in e tt’ s a p p e a l. S e e S ta te v . Min e tt , N o. A - 6554- 9 7 T 1 (N .J . S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv . J a n . 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 ).8

M in e tt p e tit io n e d f

o r c e rtific a tio n to th e N e w Je rse yS u p re m e C o u rt. A g a in , h is pet i t i on w as bas ed pr i m ar i l yon s t at e l aw and rul es of evi dence , buthe i nvoked the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment , and ci t ed B r ut on . T he N ew J er s ey S u p re m e C o u rt d e n ie d re v ie w . S e e S ta te v . Min e tt , 7 5 3 A . 2 d 1 1 5 3 (N . J. 2 0 0 0 ). M i net tfi l ed a pe t i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus i n fede r al cour t . H e cl ai m s the trial c o u rt v io late d h is f a ir trial rig h ts u n d e r th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t b yd e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r a m istria l. T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld M in e tt fa iled to exhaus thi s s t at e courtr emedi es beca us e he di d notpr es entanyfede r al cons t i tut i onal l egal th e o ryo r a n a ly sis to th e h ig h e st s tate c o u rt. T h e d istric t co u rt a lso h e ld M in e tt fa iled to pr es enta s ubs t ant i vel ym er i t or i ous cl ai m . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the habe as pet i t i on, a n d d e c lin e d to is s u e a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. See Mi net tv. H endr i cks , No . 0 1 - CV 3 5 4 8 (D . N . J. Ju ly2 5 , 2 0 0 3 ). T h is c o u rt g ra n ted M in e tt’s m o tio n f o r a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty . T h e a p p e a l is l i m i t ed t o t w o i s s ues : 1) D i d M i net texhaus thi s cl ai m i n s t at e courtbybr i efl yci t i ng t he C ons t i tut i on and B r ut on ? 2) D i d t he fa i l ur e of the s t at e courtt o gr antM i net t ’ s m ot i on form i s tr i al depr i ve M i nettof the r i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al underthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t? I I . J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW T he di s t r i ctcourthad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 2254, and thi s cour thas j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253. B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour tdi d nothol d an9

evi dent i aryhear i ng orengage i n i ndepende ntfac t - fi ndi ng, butdi s m i s s ed M i net t ’ s pet i t i on b a s e d s o le ly o n a q u e s tio n o f la w , th e s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w is p le n a ry. Scar br ough v. Johns on , 3 0 0 F .3 d 3 0 2 , 3 0 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), cer t . deni ed , 5 3 7 U . S . 1 0 5 2 (20 0 2 ). A fede r al c o u rt m u st p re su m e th a t sta te c o u rt f in d in g s o f

f a c t ar e c o rre c t, un les s th e ya re n o t f a irly s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . I d. T h e sta n d a rd o f

re v iew f o r a p e tit io n f

o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s a risin g o u t o f a sta te cour tpr ocee di ng i s m andat ed byT he A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t yA ct , 28 U . S. C . § 2254( d) ( “A E D PA ”) and W i l l i am s v. Tayl or , 529 U . S. 362 ( 2000) . A pet i t i oner m u st establish tha t th e state c o u rtp roc ee d ing : ( 1 ) resu lt ed in a d ec isi o n that w as c o n tr ary t o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw , as det erm i ned byt he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ; or( 2) r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on that w 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 rese n ted in the s tat e c o u rtp roc ee d ing . 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON M i net tcont ends hi s br i ef c i t at i ons t o t he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e and B r ut on a t trial, o n a p p e a l, an d in h is p e tit io n f o r c e rtific a tio n w e re su f f icie n t to e x h a u st th e f

a ir trial c laim in sta te c o u rt. T h e sta te c o n ten d s th e re c itatio n o f th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se a n d “ ro te i ncan t at i on ” of “ con st i tuti on al bu zzw ords”, w i t ho ut addi t i on al con st i tuti on al analy si s, w e re in s u f

f ic ie n t to a le rt th e s ta te c o u rt s to h is f e d e ra l c la im . T h e c laim m u st b e “ f

a irlyp re se n ted ” to th e sta te c o u rts “ b yin v o k in g o n e c o m p lete10

r ound of the St at e’ s es t abl i s hed appe l l at e r evi ew pr oces s . ” O ’ Sul l i van v. B oer cke l , 526 U .S . 8 3 8 , 8 4 5 (1 9 9 9 ); C ar pent erv. V

aughn , 2 9 6 F .3 d 1 3 8 , 1 4 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). A c laim is “ f a irlyp re se n ted ” w h e n th e re is: ( a) r el i ance on pert i nentfede r al cas es empl oy i ng cons t i tut i onal anal y s i s , ( b) r el i ance on s t at e ca s es empl oy i ng cons t i tut i onal anal y s i s i n l i ke fa ct s i tuat i ons , ( c) as s er t i on of the cl ai m i n t erm s s o par t i cul aras t o cal l t o m i nd a sp ec ifi c righ t pro tected b ythe C o n sti tuti o n , an d (d) a ll eg ati o n o f a p att ern of fa ct s t hati s w el l w i t hi n t he mai ns t r eam of cons t i tut i onal l i t i gat i on. McC andl es s v. V

aughn , 1 7 2 F .3 d 2 5 5 , 2 6 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); E vans v. C our tof C om m on P l eas , 9 5 9 F . 2 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). I n m os tof the ca s es fr om t he Supr eme C our tand the C our tof A ppeal s forthe T hi r d C i r cui tci t ed byt he s t at e, t he def endantfai l ed t o i nvoke anycons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on orcas e l aw w hat s oever . Forexampl e, i n B aldw i n v. R eese , 541 U . S. 27 ( 2004) , defe ndant rai sed an ineffecti ve assi st ance o f app el l ant coun sel cl ai m , bu tfai l ed to i den t i fyi tas a f e d e ra l cla im a n d d id n o t cite a n yf e d e ra l ca se law . S im ilarly , the d e f e n d a n t in McC an dles s m ade no r efe r ence t o t he fe der al cons t i tut i on orcas e l aw w i t h r egar d t o t he c la im s th e c o u rt f

o u n d e x h a u s te d . McC an dles s , 172 F. 3d at262. It is n o t su f

f icie n t sim p lyto in v o k e “ d u e p ro c e ss ” o r “ f a ir trial” rig h ts in th e sta te c o u rt . See Kel l erv. Lark i ns , 2 5 1 F .3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 4 -4 1 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). B u t M in e tt expl i ci t l yi nvoked the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment , and r el i ed on one Supr eme C our tcas e byanal ogy . M i net tal s o pr es ent ed the fa ctual underpi nni ngs of his fe deral c laim, and

wec on c ludethat, whil ehis pre sentatio n b are ly pa sse s mu ster, hedid11

e xha us t hi s c laim in s tatec ourt . M o v i n g th e n t o th e m e ri t s o f M i n e tt ’ s p e t i t i o n , h e c o nt e n d s the tr i al cour t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on form i s t r i al vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al underthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the F ou rt eenth A m end m ent. B ecause o f t he p rej ud i ci al natur e of L eat hers’ “othercri m es” t es t i m ony , w eakne s s es i n t he pr os ecut i on’ s cas e, s uch as the l ack of phy s i cal evi dence ty i n g M i n e t tt o t h e c r i me , a n d t h e l a c k o f c r e d i b i l i t yo f

p r o s e c u t i o n ’ s wi t n e s s e s , h e c l a i ms the j ur yw oul d nothave c onvi ct ed hi m w i t houtthe “othercr i m es ” t es t i m ony , and the j u d g e ’ s l i mi t i n g i n s t ru c t i o n s c o u l d n o tc u r e th e h a r m. M i net tci t es no Supr eme C our tcas es on poi nt . H e ar gues byanal ogyt o B r ut on , w her e the C our thel d t hata tr i al cour t ’ s l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on coul d notcur e the vi ol at i on of a def endant ’ s Si xt h A m endmentr i ghtt o confr ont at i on w hen a non- t es t i fy i ng codefe ndant ’ s confe s s i on i m pl i cat ed the def endant . T he B r ut on c o m m e n ts o n lim its to cur at i ve i ns t ruct i ons do notappl yher e bec aus e Leather s ’ “othercr i m es ” t es t i m onydi d not dir ect l yi m pli cat e M i netti n D esch’s m urder, and L eat hers w as avai l able for cr ossexami nat i on. M i net tal s o ci t es a footnot e i n G r eerv. Mi l l er , 4 8 3 U . S . 7 5 6 (19 8 7 ): W e n o rm all yp resu m e tha t a j u ryw il l fo ll o w an instruction to d isr eg ard i nadmi s s i bl e evi dence i nadvert ent l ypr es ent ed t o i t , unl es s ther e i s an " o v e r w h e l m i n g p r o b a b i l i t y" th a tth e j u r y w i l l b e u n a b l e t o f o l l o w th e c o u r t 's i ns truct i ons , and a s t r ong l i kel i hood t hatthe ef fec tof the evi dence w oul d be "d e v a sta tin g " to th e d e f e n d a n t. I d. at766, n. 8 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I n G r eer , the def endanti n a murde rtr i al t ook t he12

st and , and on cross -exam i nati on t he p rosecut or asked the defen dan tabo ut hi s post arr est s ile n c e . I

d. at 75 9 . C o u n sel fo r th e d ef en d an t objected im m ed iat elyan d the c o u rt s u s ta in e d th e o b

je c tio n . I

d. T h e d ef

en d an t l ater m o v ed fo r a m istri al, b u t th e c o u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n a n d g a v e tw o c u ra tiv e in s tru c tio n s in s te a d . I d. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt h e ld th e d e n ia l o f

th e m o tio n d id n o t v io la te th e d e f e n d a n t’ s d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts . I d. at 766. “The se quence of eve nt s i n t hi s cas e- - a s i ngl e ques t i on, an i m m edi at e obj ect i on, and tw o cur at i ve i ns t ruct i ons - - cl ear l yi ndi cat es thatthe pr os ecut or ' s i m pr operques t i on di d not vi ol at e M i l l er ' s due pr oces s r i ght s . ” I d. M i net ti gnor es t hatt he C our ti n G r eerfou nd no du e process vi olat i on . H e al so does nots how t her e i s an “ove r w hel m i ng pr obabi l i t y ” the j uryw as unabl e t o fol l ow t he trial c o u rt’s in stru c tio n s, o r a “ stro n g lik e lih o o d ” th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s “ d e v a sta tin g ” to hi s cas e. M i net tal s o r el i es on Moor e v. Mor t on , 255 F. 3d 95 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( gr ant i ng defe ndantnew t r i al w her e pr os ecut or i al m i s conductr ender ed fi r s ttr i al unfai r ) . W hi l e he sugg est s the p rosecut or i n thi s case m ayhav e i ntent i on al l yel i ci t ed “o t her cr i m es” t es t i m ony , t he tr i al courtfound the t es t i m onyi nadvert ent . A l s o, the pr ej udi ce f r om L eather s ’ t es t i m onydoes notr i s e t o t hats uffe r ed bythe def endanti n Moo re . T he closestcase on po i nt ci t ed b yM i netti s McK i nney v . R ees , 9 9 3 F . 2 d 1 3 7 8 (9 th C i r . 1993) . I n McK i nney , a pr e- A E D PA tr i al , i r r el evant“otheract s ” evi dence w as err oneous l yadmi t t ed. H er e, t he tr i al cour ti m m edi at el ys t ruck Leather s ’ s t at ementand13

i s s ued cur at i ve i ns t ruct i ons . I n McK i nney , the r emai ni ng evi dence agai ns tthe def endant w a s w e a k . I

d. at 13 8 5 . H ere , asid e f rom the in ad m issi b le st atem en t, the ju ryh ea rd s ubs t ant i al t es t i m onyfr om bot h L eather s and W ar d di r ect l yi ncul pat i ng M i net t . N ei t her Moo re n o r McK i nney i s “ c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d f e d e r a l l a w d e t e r mi n e d b yth e S u p r e me Co u r t , ” r e q u i r e d f

o rr e l i e f u n d e rAE DP A. M i net tci t es no Supr eme C our tcas e cl ear l yes t abl i s hi ng the admi s s i on of “other cr i m es ” evi dence cons t i tut es a vi ol at i on of fe der al fai rtr i al r i ght s . T o t he contr ary , t he m o s t r e le v a n t S u p re m e C o u rt c a s e s s u g g e s t th e c o n tr a ry. See, e. g. , Est el l e v. McG uir e , 502 U . S. 62 ( 1991) ( al l ow i ng evi dence of pr i ori nj ur i es i n a tr i al fori nfantm ur der , and re f u sin g h a b e a s re lief

f o r a d e f icie n t li m iti n g in stru c tio n ); G r eerv. Mi l l er , supra ( no due pr oces s vi ol at i on forpr os ecut or ’ s ques t i on aboutdefe ndant ’ s pos t arr es ts i l ence aft er o b jec tio n w a s s u sta in e d a n d lim iti n g in stru c tio n s g iv e n ); Spence rv. Texas , 385 U . S. 554 ( 1967) ( r ej ect i ng a due pr oces s chal l enge t o a s t at e rul e admi t t i ng evi dence of pr i or sim il ar c ri m es w h en the ju d g e g ives a li m it ing instruction ). M i net tdoes notar gue ther e w as an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s ; he c a n n o ts h o w a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l Co n s t i tu t i o n u n d e rth e AE DP A s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. I V. CO NC L US I ON M in e tt e x h a u s te d h is s ta te re m e d ie s , b u t h is h a b e a s p e titio n is la c k in g in m e ri t. Forr eas ons ot hert han thos e r el i ed on bythe di s t r i ctcour t , w e af fi r m the deni al of M i nett ’s peti t i on for w ri tof h abeas co rpus.