T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw * o fth e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O ctob er17,2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C I R C U I T ANT ONI O L AVE L L E S M I T H , P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 06- 6067 M A R T Y SI R M O N S, W ar den, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D . C . No . 0 4 - C V - 1 0 7 2 - H ) ( W . D . O kl ahoma)

O R DER DENYI N G CERTI F I CATE O F AP PEALABI L I T Y * B efor e H E N R Y , B R I S C O E , and O ’ BRI E N , C i rcui tJudg es. Pet i t i onerA nt oni o L avel l e Sm i t h, a pr i s oneri n t he cus t odyof the S tate o fO k lah o m a , p ro c e e d in g p ro se , se e k s a c e rtific a te o fa p p e a lab ili ty ( “C O A ”) t o appea l the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s pet i t i on. See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( pr ovi di ng t hatno appea l m aybe t aken fr om a fi nal or derdi s pos i ng of a § 2254 pe t i t i on unl es s t he pet i t i oner o b tai n s a C O A ). S m ith w a s c o n v icte d o ffirst d e g re e m u rd e r b ya ju rya n d se n ten c e d to l i fe i m pr i s onm entw i t houtpar ol e. H e appe al ed hi s convi ct i on t o t he-2-

O kl ahoma C our tof C r i m i nal A ppeal s ( “O C C A ”) , w hi ch affi r m ed the convi ct i on and s ent ence on M ay24, 2004. Sm i t h di d notfi l e a pe t i t i on for pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n s t at e court . O n A ugus t30, 2004, Sm i t h fi l ed a pet i t i on forfede r al habea s r el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2254 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma. O n February11, 2 0 0 5 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt g ra n te d S m ith ’s m o tio n to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t. Sm i t h fi l ed an a m ended pe t i t i on on February17, 2005, r ai s i ng ni ne gr ounds fo r re lief. T h e se n in e g ro u n d s m irro r th e n in e g ro u n d s ra ise d b yS m ith in h is d ir e c t a p p e a l to th e O C C A . G ro u n d s o n e th ro u g h fo u r a lleg e th a t th e trial c o u rt e rro n e o u sly a d m itt e d c e rta in tes tim o n ya n d e v id e n c e th a t v io late d S m ith ’s r ig h t to a fa ir trial a n d h is rig h ts u n d e r th e C o n fro n tatio n C lau se . In g ro u n d fiv e , S m ith a rg u e s th e trial c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n fo r se v e ra n c e . G ro u n d six as s er t s t hatSm i t h’ s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen the tr i al cour tl i m i t ed hi s abi l i t yt o cr os s - exami ne a s t at e w i t nes s . I n gr ound s even, Sm i t h al l eges t he tr i al cour terr oneous l yfai l ed t o s ua s pont e i ns t ructthe j ur yon acc om pl i ce t es t i m ony . I n gr ound ei ght , Sm i t h cont ends he w as deni ed a fai rt r i al byt he admi s s i on of i r r el evantand hi ghl ypr ej udi ci al phot ogr aphs of the vi ct i m . Fi nal l y , gr ound ni ne al l eges an ac cumul at i on of e rr o rs e n titli n g S m ith to a n e w tr ia l. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed Sm i t h’ s habea s pet i t i on on J anuary23, 2006-3-

aft eradopt i ng t he magi s t r at e j udge’ s r epor tand r ecomm endat i on and fi ndi ng al l ni ne of hi s gr ounds t o l ack mer i t . O n February9, 2006, the di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed a CO A beca us e Sm i t h had notm ade a s ubs t ant i al sh o w in g o fth e d e n ial o fa c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t an d d e n ied h is m o tio n to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ris o n a p p e a l. T hi s cour tcan i s s ue a CO A onl y“i f the appl i canthas m ade a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o fth e d e n ia l o fa c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . “A pet i t i oners at i s fi es thi s s t andar d bydemonstr at i ng t hat ju rists o fre a so n c o u ld d isa g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt’s r e so lu tio n o fh is co n sti tuti o n al claim s o r th at j u ri sts co u ld co n clud e the issue s p rese n ted a re adequa t e t o des erve enc our agementt o pr ocee d fur t her . ” M i l l er - E l v. C ockr el l , 537 U . S. 322, 327 ( 2003) . T hi s det erm i nat i on “r equi r es an overvi ew of the cl ai m s i n t he habe as pet i t i on and a ge ner al as s es s m entof th e ir m e rits.” I d . at 3 3 6 . S m ith is n o t re q u ire d to p ro v e th e m e rits o fh is cas e, buthe mustnonethel es s demonstr at e “s om ethi ng m or e than the abs ence of fr i vol i t y ” ort he mer e exi s t ence of “good fai t h” on hi s par t . I d. at 3 3 8 (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). U nder§ 2254, t hi s cour tm aygr anta C O A on a cl ai m thatw as adj udi cat ed on the mer i t s i n s t at e courtonl yi f the s t at e court ’ s deci s i on

“ w a s c o n tra ryto , o r 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, cle a rly es t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned bythe Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed-4-

St at es ” or“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 ght o fth e e v id e n c e 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 . § 2254( d) ( 1) - ( 2) . A ft ercar eful r evi ew of Sm i t h’ s appl i cat i on, the dec i s i on of t he O C C A on di r ectappea l , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdeny i ng habea s r el i ef, an d the m aterial p o rt ion s o f th e re co rd, w e c o n clud e tha t Sm ith ’s claim s are w ith o u t m e rit. S m ith ’s first th re e g ro u n d s in v o lv e th e a d m iss io n o fe v id e n c e a t trial, w hi ch he a r gues deni ed hi m a fa i rtr i al and vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe C o n fro n tat ion C laus e. S p ec ifi ca ll y , h e c o n test s ad m issi o n o f a n o v erh ea rd te le p h o n e c o n v e rs a tio n h e h a d w ith h is b ro th e r d is c u s s in g th e v ic tim , a t hr eat eni ng phone ca l l hi s br ot herm ade t o a pot ent i al tr i al w i t nes s , and e v id e n c e th a t th e v ic tim h a d file d a p ro te c tiv e o rd e r a g a in s t h is b ro th e r. “[S] t at e courtrul i ngs on t he admi s s i bi l i t yof evi dence m aynotbe qu est i on ed in federal hab eas proceedings un l ess theyrender the tr i al so fundament al l yunfai ras t o cons t i tut e a de ni al of fe der al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” Tuckerv. M akow s ki , 883 F. 2d 877, 881 ( 10t h C i r . 1989) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he di s t r i ctcour tpr oper l yconcl uded thatthe admi s s i on of the e v id e n c e in q u e stio n d id n o t re n d e r S m ith ’s tria l fu n d a m e n tallyu n fa ir beca us e the overhear d t el ephone c onver s at i on di d notpr ove ce nt r al t o the pr os ecut i on’ s cas e and the otherevi dence i m pl i cat ed Sm i t h’ s br ot her , r ather t han Sm i t h.-5-

Sm i t h al l eges i n hi s four t h gr ound t hatthe admi s s i on of the above evi dence and otherevi dence fr om tr i al , s peci fi cal l ys t at ement s hi s br ot her m ade t o a det ect i ve, vi ol at ed hi s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e r i ght s . T he C o n fro n tatio n C lau se b a rs th e in tro d u c tio n o ftes tim o n ial h e a rsa ya g a in st a cr i m i nal defe ndant , unl es s t he dec l ar anti s unavai l abl e and the ac cus ed has had a pr i oroppor tuni t yt o cr os s - exami ne the dec l ar ant . C r aw for d v. W a sh in g to n , 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 , 5 3 -5 4 (2 0 0 4 ). N o n e o fth e sta tem e n ts S m ith compl ai ns of qual i fyas t es t i m oni al hear s ayoffe r ed aga i ns thi m under C ra w fo rd . T h e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyc o n c lu d e d th a t th is e v id e n c e fa ils to i m pl i cat e Sm i t h’ s r i ght s undert he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e bec aus e i tei t her : 1) w as notoffe r ed aga i ns thi m ; 2) di d noti m pl i cat e hi m , or ; 3) w as not h e a r s a y. E ven i f anyof thi s evi dence w as i m pr oper l yadmi t t ed as t es t i m oni al hearsay , S m i t h is “no tenti t l ed to hab eas r el i ef ba sed on tri al err or unles s [he] can e s t abl i s h t hati tr es ul t ed i n ‘ actual pr ej udi ce. ’ ” B r echtv. A b ra h a m so n , 5 0 7 U .S . 6 1 9 , 6 3 7 (1 9 9 3 ). S m ith h a s fa iled to d e m o n stra te a c tu a l p reju d ice fro m th e a d m iss io n o fth is e v id e n c e . F in a lly , S m ith as s er t ed i n hi s di r ectappea l and i n ar gum ent s i n s uppor tof thi s appea l that hi s t r i al couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o obj ectt o the admi s s i on of thi s evi dence w as in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o fc o u n se l. T h e d istric t co u rt a d d re ss e d th is a rg u m e n t, th o u g h n o t in c lu d e d in S m ith ’s h a b e a s p e tit io n , an d fo u n d th a t it-6-

l acks m er i tbeca us e fa i l ur e t o obj ectt o admi s s i bl e evi dence i s not in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o fc o u n s e l. W e a g re e w ith th is d e te rm in a tio n . S m ith ’s fifth g ro u n d a lleg e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in re fu sin g to s everhi s t r i al fr om hi s br ot her ’ s tr i al beca us e he w as pr ej udi ced bythe a d m is s io n o fe v id e n c e th a t p e rt a in e d s o le ly to th e c a s e a g a in s t h is b ro th e r. “W hethert he tr i al cour terr ed i n deny i ng s ever ance i s gener al l ya ques t i on of s t at e l aw t hati s notcogni zabl e on fe der al habea s appea l , fora cr i m i nal defe ndanthas no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o s ever ance unl es s ther e i s a s t r ong s how i ng of pr ej udi ce c aus ed bythe j oi nttr i al . ” C um m i ngs v. E vans , 161 F . 3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T h e d istri ct co u rt pr oper l yfound thatt hi s cl ai m l acks m er i t . T he O C C A not ed on di r ect appea l t hatSm i t h and hi s br ot herdi d notpr es entant agoni s t i c defens es and t he mi ni m al evi dence pr es ent ed aga i ns thi s br ot herdur i ng t he tr i al di d not im p lica te S m ith . F u rth e r, w h e n th e e y e w itn e ss tes tim o n ya g a in st S m ith is al s o cons i der ed, bot h t he O C C A and the di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded Sm i t h has fa i l e d t o m a k e a s t r o n g s h o w i n g o fp r ej u d i c e c a u s e d b yth e j o i n ttr i a l . We agr ee.I n hi s s i xt h gr ound, Sm i t h al l eges a C onfr ont at i on C l aus e vi ol at i on for th e trial c o u rt’s lim itatio n o fd e fe n se c o u n se l’s c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n o fa sta te w itn e s s re la tin g to w h e th e r t h e v ic tim h a d e v e r p a id th e w itn e s s w ith d ru g s . “T he C on front at i on C l ause gu arant ees an o pp ortun i t yfor effecti ve cross--7-

e x a m in a tio n , n o t cr o ss -e x a m in a tio n th a t is e ffe c tiv e in w h a tev e r w a y , an d to w hat everext ent , t he defens e mi ghtw i s h. ” D el aw ar e v. V an A r s dal l , 475 U . S. 673, 679 ( 1986) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . B eca us e ther e w as no evi dence the cr i m e ati s s ue r el at ed t o a drug t r ans act i on, the j ur yhad hea r d enough about t he w i t nes s ’ drug us e t o i m peac h hi s t es t i m ony , and the evi dence pr es ent ed byt hi s w i t nes s w as nott he onl yevi dence of Sm i t h’ s gui l t , w e agr ee w i t h the d istri ct co u rtthat the O C C A w as c o rrect i n affirm ing the tri al co u rt ’s lim ita tio n o fth is n o n -r e le v a n t te s tim o n y . S m ith ’s s e v e n th g ro u n d a lleg e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in fa ili n g to su a sp o n te i n stru ct th e jurythat, u n d er O k laho m a law , an ac co m p li ce ’s t es t i m onyr equi r es corr obor at i on. T he O C C A det erm i ned, and the di s t r i ct cour tconcurr ed, t hatt he w i t nes s ati s s ue w as notan ac compl i ce unde r O k lah o m a law . E v e n ifth e w itn e ss w a s c o n sid e re d a n a c c o m p lice , S m ith m us ts how t hat“i n t he cont extof the ent i r e tr i al , the fa i l ur e t o i ns t ructthe j ur yt o car eful l ycons i der[the w i t nes s ’ ] cr edi bi l i t yas an ac compl i ce ‘ had t he effec tof r ender i ng t he tr i al s o fundament al l yunfai ras t o caus e deni al of a fa i rt r i al . ’ ” Fos t erv. W ar d, 182 F. 3d 1177, 1193 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) . T he di s t r i ctcour tpr oper l yconcl uded thatSm i t h fai l ed t o m eetthi s heavy b u rd e n . I n hi s ei ght h gr ound, Sm i t h as s er t s he w as deni ed due pr oces s bythe a d m is s io n o fh ig h ly p reju d ic ia l a n d ir re le v a n t p h o to g ra p h s o fth e v ic tim .-8-

O n habea s r evi ew , t hi s cour tcons i der s onl y“w hetherthe admi s s i on of the phot ogr aphs r ender ed the pr ocee di ngs fundament al l yunfai r . ” Sm al l w ood v. G i bson , 19 1 F . 3d 12 57 , 12 75 (10t h C i r. 19 99 ). C ou rt s should use “con si derabl e sel f-r estrai nt” w hen un dert aking a fu nd am ental fai rness anal y s i s . I d. B eca us e the phot ogr aphs demonstr at ed the l ocat i on, condi t i on, and pos i t i on of the vi ct i m ’ s bodyatthe s cene of the s hoot i ng and corr obor at ed t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he ci r cumst ance s of the murde r , the di s t r i ctcour tw as corr ecti n fi ndi ng thatthei radmi s s i on w as pr obat i ve and d id n o t r en d er S m ith ’s tri al fu n d am en tal lyu n fa ir . Fi nal l y , Sm i t h’ s ni nt h gr ound as s er t s thatthe cumul at i ve effec tof the al l eged e r r or s r ender ed hi s t r i al fundament al l yunfai r . C um ul at i ve err or anal y s i s “does notappl yt o t he cumul at i ve effec tof non- err or s , ” and requi res atl eastt w o o r m ore actual error s for r el i ef. M oo re v. R eyno l ds, 153 F. 3d 1086, 1113 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) . B eca us e Sm i t h has fai l ed t o s how th a t tw o o r m o re a c tu a l e rr o rs o c c u rr e d , th is c la im is w ith o u t m e ri t. T o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s on appea l , Sm i t h m us ts how “a fi nanci al i nabi l i t yt o payt he r equi r ed fe es and the exi s t ence of a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton t he l aw and fa ct s i n s uppor tof the i s s ues r ai s ed on appea l . ” M cI nt os h v. U ni t ed St at es Par ol e C om m ’ n, 115 F. 3d 809, 812 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . Up o n r e v i e w o fS m i t h ’ s a ffi d a v i t , we concl ude thathe i s notent i t l ed t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s beca us e he ha s-9-

n o t p re se n ted a n o n friv o lo u s a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l. Sm i t h has fai l ed t o m ake a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h ta s t o a n yo fh i s n i n e g r o u n d s fo rr e l i e f. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we D E N Y h is r eq u est fo r a C O A an d D IS M IS S the m att er. W e D E N Y S m ith ’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ris a n d re m in d h im th a t th e fe e fo r th is a p p e a l r e m a in s d u e . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge