## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1404 W I L L I A M R ILEY S UT HE RLA ND , III, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. D ONAL D G AETZ, W ARDEN, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C3469

— SamuelD er-Yegh iayan, Judge .
A RGUED M AY 15, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 14, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d B AU ER an d F LA UM, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . W illiam R iley S u th er lan d , I II w as t r i e d b e f o r e a j ur y i n a n I l l i no i s s t a t e c o ur to n charg es ofat tem pted fi rs t- degre e m u rd er, ag gr avat ed ba tt ery wi th a f i r ea r m a nd ho m e i nv as i o n. On th e th ird d ay of tr ial, Su th er lan d ’s d efe n se co u n s e l w as h eld i n conte m pt and j ai l ed ove rni ght. Defe ns e c ou nsel re turned to cour t the next m or ni ng an d repres ented2 N o. 08

- 1404 S u th e r l a n d th r o u g h th e c o n c l u s i o n o ft r i a l, a tw h i c h t i me a j ury f ound S utherl and guil ty of al l charg es. In h is dir ect appeal and aga i n thr oughout po st-co nvi cti on pr o ce eding s, S uthe r l an d c l ai m ed that he was de ni ed th e ass i sta nce of counsel because the j ai l i ng of h is a tto rney preve nted the prepar ati on o fhi s d efe nse. A ftertho se c h alle n ge s w er e u n su c c es sfu l, Su th er lan d so u gh t a w rit ofhabea s co rpus i n federa l co urt u n d er 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254. The dis tr i c t c ourtdeni ed hi s peti ti on, a deci si on wh i c h S u th e r l a n d n o w a p p e a l s a n d w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND O n th e t h ird d ay of Su th e rla n d ’s fiv e-d ay j u ry tria l, d efe n se co u n se l th ric e v iola te d a c ou rtord er b a r rin g h im f ro m el i ci ti ng te st im ony re gar ding excul pator y s tat em ents Suther l and m ade to pol i ce. A fterthe thi rd vi ol atio n , the cour t ca l l ed an ev eni ng r eces s a nd o rder ed counselj ai l ed ove rni ght. The next m or ni ng, the tr i alr esum ed; defense coun sel p resente d i ts enti re cas e, i ncl ud i ng S utherl and’s tes tim ony. On the fi fth and fi nal day o ftr i al, the St ate cal l ed o ne r eb ut ta l wi tn es s, and th e par ti es pr es en te d c l o sing ar gum ents. A t the co ncl usi on o ftr i al, Su th er l and w as convi c te d o ftwo co unts ea ch ofat tem pted fi rs t- degre e mu r d e r, a g g r a v a t e d b a t t e r y wi t h a fi r e a r m a n d h o me i nv as i o n. S uthe r l an d fi r sto bj ec te d t o hi s co uns el ’ s o ve r ni g ht in c ar c er at ion in a m ot ion for m ist ria l filed ap p ro x im at ely one m onth a fterhi s co nvi cti on . In a s up port i ng affi davi t,N o. 08

- 1404 3

D efense counsel ’ s obsti nate behav ior and the court’ s ex- 1 as per at i on with it m ay be r em i ni s c en tf or s om e ofthe c ont en t i ous i nt erpla y be t weenthe fi c t i ona l c har ac t er s ofVinc en t L aG u ard ia G am b ini an d J u d g e C ha m b erlain H aller i n th e fil m “M y Co u s i n Vin ni e. ” On thr ee s epa ra t e oc c as i ons duri ng tr ial, J ud g e H a lle r hel d V inni e i n conte m pt and, e ach t im e, m ade hi m s pen d the ove rn i ghtr ec es s i n j ai l

. How eve r, unl i ke de fe n s e c o u n s e l h e r e , Vi n n i e , a Ne w Yo r k l a wy e r s t r u g g l i ng t o a daptt o the r ur al

- Alabam a t ri al s et t i ng, f ound thatthe acc o m m o d atio ns in jail offered the b est nig ht’s sleep he co u ld find aw ay fr o m t h e B ig A p p le. U p on his retu rn to the cou rtro om , a re vi t al i ze d V i nni e di s m ant l ed the c re di bi l i t y ofthe S t a t e ’ s c i r c u ms t a n t i a l c a s e a n d c l ea re d th e n a me s o fth e “ t wo y u te s” h e r ep re se n te d . (A n d ag a in w e se e t h a t li fe fo llo w s a rt ). defe nse c ounseldescr ib ed hi s e xperi ence at the Coo k C ou n ty Jail. C ou n se l alle ge d th at Su th er lan d w as u n a b le to co mmun i c a t e wi th h i m d u r i n gh i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n. Further, defense counselst ate d t h at h e was abl e t o sl eep f oro nl y three hour s duri ng the o ver ni ght r ecess an d , as a r esul t, r eturned to cour t the next day sl eep- depri ved an d dev o i d o f th e m en ta l cl ar i ty to ade qua tely pr es en t S uthe r l an d ’ s ca se . Acco r di ngt o c o uns el, he l ac k ed th e “pr es en ce o fmind ” to r eque ste i th era mis tr i alo r c o nti n u a n c e wh e n th e t r i a l r e s u me d th e f o l l o win gd a y . The tr i alc o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o n. 1 O n dir ect appeal, S utherl and rai sed num er ous c ha ll enges , i nc l udi nga c l ai m tha t hi s co uns el ’ s o ve r ni g ht i ncarc er ati on a m ounted to a const ructi ve denia l o f h is Six th A m en d m en t rig h t t o c ou n se l. Inaffi r m i n g h is con viction, th e Ill inois A p p ell ate C ou rt noted that Suth er-4 N o. 08

- 1404 l and did not conte nd thatdefen se counselas ked to con ferwi thS uthe r l an d dur i nghi s ni g hto fi nc ar ce r at i o n, that Suther l an d request ed to se e hi s co unselthatni ght, orthatsuch a r equest w as denie d b y j ai l autho ri ti es. Peop l ev. Su t he r l and, 74 3 N
. E. 2d 1007, 10 15 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 2000 )
. T here f or e, the cour t r eas oned, S utherl and coul d not prove thathe was deni ed hi s r i ght t o the a ssi sta nce o f c ou n se l. Id

. T h ereafter, S utherl and fi l ed a pr o se peti ti on f orpost
co n v i c t i o n r e l i e f i n th e s t a t e t r i a l c o u r t i n wh i c h he aga i n ar gued that h i s co unsel ’ s incarc er ati on vi ol ate d hi s S i xth A m endm ent r i ghts. Thi s t i m e, S utherl and presente d a supporting affi davi t in w h i ch he a l l ege d fo r the fi rs t t i m e that j ai l per son n el denie d his r equest to m eetwith c ounselduri ng the o ver ni ght r eces s. In di sm i ssing the peti ti on, the tr i alco urt fou n d that, bec ause the c l ai m was the sam e constr ucti ve- denia l

- of

- counsel cl ai m thatS utherl and had rai sed o n dir ect appeal, i t was barre d byr es j ud i cata
. S utherl and then br ought a § 22 54 p et itio n in fe d er al d ist ric t c ou rt . Fin d i n g th at th e Illino is A p p ell ate C ou r t h ad prop erly rej ecte d Suth erland ’s con stru ctive d en ialof cou ns el cl aim , the d istri ct cou rt d en ied th e pe tit io n for a w rit of habea s corp us . Suth erl a n d s o u g h ta c e r t i fi c a t e o fap p e a l a b i l i t y, wh i c h we g r a nt e d.

I I . DI S C US S I ON Suther l and contends that he w as denie d his S i xth Am en dm en t r i g htt o a ssi st an ce o fc o uns elwhenhe w as not al l owed t o c onferwith hi s co unselduri ng anN o. 08

- 1404 5

ove rni ght r eces s the ni ght b ef or e hi s ca se- i n-c hi efw as to be prese nted. Suther l and c l ai m s that the conte m p t order enter ed aga in st hi s a tto rneyand, l ate r, the re fusalby C oo k C ou n ty Jail offic ials to allo w S u t h er lan d an d h is at to rn ey to co m m u n i c a te w h en th ey w er e b ein g h eld in th e s am e fa c ility , com b in ed to res u lt in th e d en ial. W e r evi ew de nov o the dist ri ct cour t’ s denia l o fa habeas p et itio n . B en-Y isray l v. B uss , 540 F.3d 542 , 546 (7th C ir. 2008 )
. U nd erthe A nti ter ro ri sm and Effecti ve Death Penal ty A ct ( “A ED PA ”) , we m ay gr ant habe as re l i ef onl y i f the s t a t e c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n “ wa s c o nt r a r y t o , o r i nvol ved an unre as onable appli cati on o f, cl ear l y e stabli sh ed Fe d eral l aw , as de term ined by the Sup rem e C ou rt of t h e U n ite d Sta te s” or “ w a s b a s e d on an u n re as on ab le deter m i nati on o fthe f acts i n l i ght o fthe evi dence prese n te d .” 28 U .S .C . § 22 54 (d ); Willia m s v. Ta ylo r, 529 U
. S. 362, 37 6 ( 2000 )
. A st ate
- cou rt d eci si on i s “ contr ar y t o” federa l l aw , w i thi n the m eani ng of the federa l ha b eas sta tute, i fthe sta te cour t e i theri ncor re ctl y l ai d out governin g U nited States Su p rem e C ou rt prec ed en t, or, h av in g i denti fi ed the cor re ct rule o fl aw , deci ded a case d iffer en tly th a n a m at er ially fac tu ally ind ist in gu ish ab le Su p re m e C ou rt c as e. 28 U .S.C .A . § 2 2 54 (d )(1) ; Call oway v. M ontgom e ry, 512 F. 3d 940, 943 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 )
. A n “un re ason able ap p li cation ” of U nited States Su p rem e C ou rt prece dent occ urs, withi n the m eani ng o fthe fed er al habeas st atute , wh en a sta te cour t i denti fi es the c or re ct g o ve r n i n g l e g a l r u l e b u t u n r e a s o n a b l y a p p l i e s i t t o t he fac ts of a c a se or if th e s ta te co u rteit h er u n re as on ab ly extends a l ega l pri nci ple f ro m the S up re m e Cour t’ s pre cedent to a new co ntext in w hi ch it s h ou ld not a pp l y o r6 N o. 08

- 1404

unreas onabl y r efuses to ex te n d that pr i nci ple to a new con tex t in w hich i t shou ld ap p ly. 28 U
. S. C
. A
. § 2254(d )( 1); M uth v. Fra nk, 412 F.3d 808, 814 (7th Cir. 2005). This sta nd ar d onl y a pp l i es, however, to a “cl ai m that wa s a dj ud i c a t e d o n the me r i t s i n S t a t e c o ur tp r o c e e di ngs. ” 2 8 U
. S. C. § 2 254( d). I n thi s ca se, the post- convi cti on trialc o u r t ap p li ed res j ud icata to Sut he rland ’s den ial -of

ass i sta nce- of

- counselcl ai m . Because a j ud gm ent o f re s jud ica ta is n otan ad j u d ica tio n on th e m er its , see Conne rv. M cBr i de, 3 75 F
. 3d 64 3, 6 49 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) , the st at e co ur t dec i si o n th at i s su bj ec t to o urr ev i ew i s th e j udg m en t o f th e I l l i no i s Appel l at e Cou r t. I n rej ec ting S u th e r l a n d ’ s c l a i m, th a tc o u r ta p p l i e d th e S u p r e me Cou r t’ s dec i si o n in G eders v. U nit e d S ta tes , 425 U
. S. 80 ( 19 76 )
. I n G eders , the Court hel d tha t “an o rder pr ev en tingpe titi o ne r fr o m c o ns ul tinghi s co uns el‘ ab o ut anythi n g’ d uri ng a 17- hour ove rni ght r eces s be tw een h is d ire c t-a n d cr os s-e x am in at ion im p in ge d u p on h is r i g htt o the a ssistan ce o fc o uns elg ua r an te ed bythe Si xth A m endm ent. ” Id

. a t9 1
. Di s t i n g u i s h i n gfr o m G eders , th e I ll inois A p p ell ate C ou rt fou n d th at in Suth erland ’s case , nei therdefense counselnorS utherl and w as sequeste r ed bya c o ur t o r der, no r di d the trial courto r derthe attorn ey an d Sut he rland not to sp eak to each ot he r. Suthe r l and, 74 3 N
. E. 2d at 1007
. M or eov er, the cour t r ea soned, Suther l and did not show that the tr i alco urt’ s o verni ght in c arcer ati on o f hi s cou ns elf o r c o nt empt pr ev en te d hi m fr o m c o nfer r i ng w i th hi s a tto rne y d uri ng tha t per i od orthathe des i re d to d o s o. Id

. The co urt note d that S utherl and w asN o. 08

- 1404 7

o bl i g at ed to pr o ve tha t he was a ctua l l y de ni ed hi s r i g ht to co n su lt w ith h is a tt or n ey . Id. ( cit i ngP eop le v. Stew a rt, 514 N
. E. 2d 51, 54 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 87)) (defendant’ s pl acem en t in isola tio n ce ll d u rin g ov e r n igh t re c es se s o f h is tr i al did not depri ve hi m of ass i sta nce of counsel ab sence evi dence thatdefendant att em pted orwas preve nted from cont actin g cou ns el by j ailaut horities). S uthe r l an d a r g ue s th at, b y d ec l i ni ngt o fi nd tha t th e ove rni ght j ai l i ng of hi s a tto rneyam ounted to a G eders

- l i ke con s t r uc t i v e de ni a l o fc o un s e l, the I l l i no i s App e l l ate Court unreas onabl y a pp l i ed Suprem e Cour t pre c edent. W e d isa gr ee . G ra n tin g Su th er lan d ’s p et itio nw ou ld re quir e us to concl ud e that G eders ap p lies even i n circum sta nces w h er e a peti ti onerhas not dem onst ra ted that he a t t e mpt e d t o c o mm un i c a t e wi th c o un s e l du r i ng a r ec es s. The c o ur t o r deri n G eders, en tere d over cou ns el’ s obj ecti on, ex pr es sly pr o hibi te d the pe ti ti o ne r fr o m c o nsu l ting wi th hi s at to r ne y dur i ng a 17

- hour ove r ni g ht re cess . The Courtto ok cauti on t o note that i t r efused to re ach l i m i tat i ons i m posed i n other ci rcum sta nces. T he I ll inois A p p ell ate C ou rt conc lud ed that Suth erland ’s ci r cumst an ce s wer e di st i nc t be ca us e he c o ul d o nl y s pec ul ate o n the l i m i tat i ons to hi s ca paci ty to conferwith hi s co uns el

. The mate r i alf ac ts i n thi s ca se wer e di st i ng ui sh ab l e f r o m tho se i n G eders , a nd the c o ur tr each e d a d i f f e re n t c on c lu sio n . See 2 8 U. S
. C
. A. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 )
. I n l i g ht of th e ev i den ce i t ha d be f o r e i t, th e st at e appe l l ate court pr o pe r l y r e fus e d t o e xt e nd G eders fro m a sc en ar io w here th e d en ialo fthe ri ght t o consul t co unselwas actualto o ne wh er e i t was m er el y s pecula ti ve.8 N o. 08

- 1404 W e m en tio n th e s ta te co u r t ’ s d et er m in at ion vis -à-v is the r eco rd be cause Suther l and l ate r att em pted to supp l em en t it . In h is p os t-c on vic tio n p et it i o n be for e t h e Illino is tr i alco urt, S utherl and subm i tte d an affi davi t in w hi ch h e alleg ed for th e first tim e th at j ail p er so n n el de n ie d h is re quest t o m eetwith c ounselduri ng the ove rni ght r eces s. Th e s t a t e t r i al co ur tr e fus e d t o c o ns i de r the a ffi da v i ta nd , fi n d i n gtha t S u th e r l a n d w a s me r e l y r a i s i n gth e s a me cl ai m thath e had rai sed o n dir ect appeal, appli ed r es j u d i c a t a . I n r e a c h i n go u r d e t e r mi n a t i o n c o n c e r n i ng whe the r the I l l i no i s App e l l a t e Co ur t ’ s de c i s i o n c o nt r adict ed Suprem e Cour t l aw , the al leg at ions m ade by Sut he r l an d i n h i s affi dav i t ar e no t par t o fo urc o nsiderat ion . B ec a u s e t o d et er m in e w h et h er a st at e c ou rt ’s d ec isi on was unr ea so nabl e, i t m us t be a ss es se d i n l i g hto fthe r e c or d th e c ou rth ad be for e it
. Se eHol l and v. Jac ks on , 54 2 U .S. 64 9, 65 2 (2 00 4). W h ile d efe n se co u n se l’s a ffid av it w as before the I ll inois A p p ell ate C ou rt, Suth e rland ’s affi davi t was not
. Suther l and al so ar gues that the pos t- convi cti on t ri al cour t s houl d have co nsi dered hi s a ffi davi t a nd r e- adjud icate d his co nstr ucti ve- denia l

- of

- counsel cl ai m fully o n the m er i ts. H ad the t ri alco urt opted to do so , in stead of i nvoking r es j ud i cata, i ts deci si on would be the focus of ou r an aly sis h er e. Se eM cBr i de, 375 F
. 3d at 64 9. As i t i s, the I l l i noi s A p p ellat e Cour t r em ains the l astst ate co urt to adj ud i cate the cl ai m o n the m er its and our anal ysi s doe s not change. Suther l and m ay ap p ea r a vi cti m o fpro ceduralbar ri er s; h e is n ot . U n d er th e ha b ea s sta tu te , Su th er lan d ’s a ffid av itN o. 08

- 1404 9 coul d have be en the subj ect of aev i denti ar y hea ring by th e d ist ric t c ou rtif h e h ad sh ow n th at h e w as n otatfau lt i n f ai l i ngt o de ve l o p the e vide nc e i n s ta te c o ur t o r, i fhe w as at f aul t, thathe c oul d m eetthe condi ti ons presc ribed in § 22 54 (e)(2 ). Se eJac ks on , 542 U
. S. at 652-53. H o w e v e r, Suther l and did n ot argue bef or e the di str i ct c ourtthat ei thero fthes e co n d itio ns had bee n dem onst ra ted nor di d the di str i ctc o ur t m ak e su cha fi ndi ng . S uthe r l an d h as ad va n c ed n o re as on w h y h is a ffid av it s h ou ld r ec ei ve c o ns i der at i o n. Eve n a ss um i ng Su th er l an d’ s affi dav i t was pa r t o fo ur co ns i der at i o n h er e, w e woul d r ea chthe s ame c o nc l usi on. That i s be cause, ev en i fS utherl and and his counsel were p reve nt ed f r o m c o nfer r i ngwi the ac h o th erdur i ng th e overn ig h t recess, noth ing p reven ted Suth erland ’s cou ns el from re q u esting th e pre p aration tim e the y w ere denie d w hen tr i alres um ed the next day. That m or ni ng, S uthe r l an d’ s co uns elc o ul d ha ve m o ve d f o r a c o nti nuance i n l i ght o fthe ci rcum sta nces that had ari sen th e pr ev i o us ni g ht

. He di d no t do s o . Had S uthe r l an d m ade s ucha m oti o n a nd the c o ur t den i ed i t, S uthe r l an d m i ght ha ve had cause to ar gue th at h is i nabi l i ty to conferwith c ounselduri ng the o ver ni ght r eces s m at er ially affe c te d th e p re p ar at ion of h is d efe n se . A s it sta nd s, ther e i s no ev i dence befor e us su gg es ti ng tha t Sutherland’s i nabi l i ty to com m unica te w i th co unselthat nigh t had any be aring on th e triali tself. T ru e, Su th er lan d ’s c ou n se l alleg ed in h is ow n affid av it th athi s o ve rnigh t j ai l i ngl eft hi m s l ee p- depr i ve d a nd d evoid of the m en tal clarity to ad eq ua tely prese nt Suth er-10 N o. 08

- 1404 lan d ’s c as e o r ev en m ov e fo r a c on tin u an c e. B u t h is c laim l acks any cre dibi l i ty. W e ca nnot a ccept that a n att or ney functi oni ng o n l i ttl e r est, wh etheri t be thre e hours ofsl eep orno sl eep atal l, w oul d l ack the prese nce ofm i nd ev en to re quest a si m ple co nti nuance. The tr i alr eco rd s h ow s that S uthe r l a nd ’ s c o un s e l n e v e rr a i s ed the i s s ue o fs l e e pde pr i v a t i o n wi th the c o ur t on the mo r ningt r i a l r e s ume d; further m ore, he cr oss - exam i ned w i tness es and m ade a cl osinga r g um en t whi l e pr o ce edingt o the t r i al ’ s co nc l usi on. I n l i g hto fh i s c a pa c i t y t o p e r f o r m t he s e fun c t i ons, i t i s i m p oss ibl e t o bel i eve co unsell acke d the pre sence of mi n d t o s t e p b e f o r e th e c o u r ta n d r e qu e s ta d d i t i o n a l t i me to p re p a re th e c as e if th e o ve rn igh t jailin g h ad tru ly i m peded hi s abi l i ty to do so

. W e co m m ent in passi ng, howe ve r, thatthe probl em need not have ar i sen a t a l l had th e tr ial courtpost poned th e san ctions un tilth e t r ia l w as over. Th at is, the cou rt coul d have s i m plyhel d counseli n conte m p t, but post

p one d his confinem en t un tilthe con clusion of trial

. N everth el es s, S uthe r l an d ha s no t presen te d a ny a r g um en t th at sh ow s t h e st at e c ou rt ’s a dj u d ica tio n of h is c laim w as contr ar y t o, o r i nvol ved an unre aso nabl e a pp l i cati on o f, S up re m e Cour t pr ecedent.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns se t for th abo ve, we A FF IRM t he di st r i ctc o ur t’ s den i alo f Suthe r l an d’ s habe as c o r pus pet i ti o n.

9- 14- 09