FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 14, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11105

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 1 5 7 8 - CV - G A P- K RS K O N S T A N T I N O S X . F O T O P O U L O S , P e titio n e r - A p p e lle e ,

v ersu s S E C R E T A R Y , D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S , A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , S T A T E O F F L O R I D A , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 14, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

T he tw o i s s ue s i n thi s appe a l by the S e c r e t a ry of the D e pa r tm e ntof C o rr e c tio n s o f

F lo r id a in v o lv e w h e th e rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f F lo r id a u n r e a s o n ab ly appl i e d c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d f e de r a l l a w w he n i tuphe l d the de a th s e nt e nc e of K on st ant i no s X . F ot op ou l os ent er ed af t erthe S t at e of F l ori da had p re se nt ed an a l l e ge dl y i nc ons i s t e ntthe ory of F ot opoul os ’ s r e l a t i ve c ul pabi l i ty i n a c oc ons pi r a t or ’ s s e nt e nc i ng tr i a l . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d a w r i tof habe a s c orpus on tw o gr ounds : ( 1) F ot opoul os ’ s tr i a l c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e by f a i l i ng t o i m pe a c h the i nc ons i s t e ntthe or i e s pr e s e nt e d by the S t a t e of F l or i da ; a nd (2 ) th e u se o f th e in co n sisten t th eo ries b y th e S tate o f F lo rid a v io lated F o to p o u lo s’s r i ghtt o due pr oc e s s . T he di s tr i c tc our tr e a c he d i t s c onc l us i on by r e vi s i t i ng, w ith o u t so statin g , th e f in d in g o f f

ac t b y th e F lo rid a c o u rts th at F o to p o u lo s’s coun se l m ade astra t egi c dec i si on . T he di stri ctcourtthen con cl ud ed that Fo t o p o u l o s ’ s r i g h tt o d u e p r o c e s s w a s a l s o v i o l a t e d e v e n th o u g h th e Su p r e me C o u r t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s h a s n e v e rh e ld th a t th e p r o s e c u tio n o f tw o d e f e n d a n ts ba s e d on i nc ons i s t e ntthe or i e s vi ol a t e s due pr oc e s s . W e di s a gr e e w i th the de c i s i on o f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r to n b o th g r o u n d s a n d c o n c l u d e th a tth e d e c i s i o n o f th e Su p r e me C ou rtof F l ori da w as no tobj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e. W e r ever se and render j u d g m en ti n fav o r o f th e S ecret ary.3 I . B AC KG RO UN D In 19 89 , F ot op ou l os and D ei dre H un t , w i th w ho m F ot op ou l os w as havi ng an e x tr a m a r ita l a f

f a ir , e s c o r te d K e v in R a m s e y to a n is o la te d r if le r a n g e . A t th e r if

le r a nge , F ot opoul os a nd H untt i e d R a m s e y t o a tr e e . H unt , a tthe di r e c t i on of F o to p o u lo s , s h o t R a m s e y th r e e tim e s in th e c h e s t w ith a tw e n ty - tw o - c a lib e rr if le . F ot opoul os r e c or de d the s hoot i ng on a vi de ot ape , butl a t e rs t oppe d the r e c or di ng and sho tR am se y i n the head w i th an A K -47 ass aul tri fl e. F ot opoul os us e d the vi de ot ape of R a m s e y ’ s m ur de rt o f

or c e H untt o a rr a nge th e m u r d e ro f

F o to p o u lo s ’s w if

e , L is a . H u n t e v e n tu a lly h ir e d B ry a n C h a s e to m u r d e rL is a f

o r$ 5 0 0 0 . C h a s e e n te r e d th e F o to p o u lo s h o m e a n d s h o t L is a o n c e in the he a d. F ot opoul os the n s hotC ha s e r e pe a t e dl y a nd ki l l e d hi m . L i s a s ur vi ve d the a tte m p te d m u r d e r . F o to p o u lo s a n d H u n t w e r e in d ic te d o n tw o c o u n ts o f f ir s tde gr e e m ur de r , tw o c ount s of a tt e m pt e d f

i r s t - de gr e e m ur de r , tw o c ount s of s o lic ita tio n to c o m m it f

ir s t- d e g r e e m u r d e r , o n e c o u n t o f c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it f ir s tde gr e e m ur de r , a nd one c ountof bur gl a ry of

a dw e l l i ng w hi l e a r m e d. H un tpl ea ded g ui l ty t o al l char ges. In her i ni t i al penal ty proce edi ng , w hi ch o ccu rred b efo re F o t o p o u l o s’ s tri al , H u n targ u ed th ath er i n v o l v em en ti n th ese c r i m e s w a s the r e s ul tof dom i na t i on a nd t or tur e by F ot opoul os . T he S t a t e of F l ori da re spon ded thatH un t ’ s i nv ol vem enti n these cr i m es w as the re sul tof her4

l ov e f or po w erand m on ey and n otdo m i nat i on by F ot op ou l os. H un tw as se nt ence d t o d ea th o n S ept em ber 13, 19 90 . H un teventual l y r ec ei ved a new tri al and w as s e n te n c e d to lif

e in p r is o n o n M a y 7 , 1 9 9 8 . F ot op ou l os’ s tri al began o n O ct ob er1, 19 90 . T he S t at e a rgued that F ot opoul os w a s the m a s t e r m i nd be hi nd the m ur de r s of both R a m s e y a nd C ha s e a nd th e a tte m p te d m u r d e ro f L is a . T h e S ta te a r g u e d th a t F o to p o u lo s d o m in a te d H u n t. T he j ury f

ound F ot opoul os gui l ty of a l l c ha r ge s a nd r e c om m e nde d a s e nt e nc e of de a th. T he tr i a l c our ts e nt e nc e d F ot opoul os t o de a th. F ot opoul os ’ s c onvi c t i on w a s a f f i r m e d on di r e c tappe a l . F ot opoul os f i l e d a m ot i on un der F l ori da R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 3. 85 0 thatsoug htcol l at er al re l i ef . A ft eran evi dent i ary hea ri ng , i n w hi ch C arm en C orre nt e, F ot op ou l os’ s tri al c ouns e l , t e s t i f

i e d, the tr i a l c our tde ni e d the m ot i on a nd the S upr e m e C our tof F l or i da a f

f i r m e d. F ot opoul os a l s o f i l e d a s t a t e habe a s pe t i t i on tha tw a s de ni e d. F ot op ou l os fi l ed a pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus i n federa l di stri ct c our t . 28 U . S . C . § 2254. T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d F ot opoul os habe a s r e l i e f on tw o g roun ds. F i rs t , the di stri ctcourthel d thatF ot op ou l os’ s tri al coun se l w as i neff ec t i ve because C orre nt e f ai l ed t o u t i l i ze the i ncon si st entdo m i nat i on theori es pres ent ed by the S t at e t o i m peac h the ca se of the S t at e. S ec on d, the di stri ctcourt he l d tha tthe i nc ons i s t e ntpos i t i ons by the S t a t e vi ol a t e d the D ue P r oc e s s C l a us e of5

th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t. I I . STA N D A R D S O F R EVI EW W e r e v ie w th e g r a n t o f

h ab e a s c o rp u s r e lie f

b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n o v o . S i m s v . S i n g l et ary, 1 5 5 F . 3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 4 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) (ci t i n g B yrd v . H asty, 14 2 F . 3d 13 95 , 13 96 (11th C i r. 19 98 )) . F ot op ou l os’ s habea s pet i t i on i s gov erned by the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996, “ w hi c h l i m i t s our r e vi e w of

the de c i s i ons of

the s t a t e c our t s a nd e s t abl i s he s a ‘ ge ne r a l f r a m e w or k of s ubs t a nt i a l de f

e r e nc e ’ f orr e vi e w i ng ‘ e ve ry i s s ue tha tthe s t a t e c our t s ha ve de c i de d. ’ ” C r ow e v. H a l l , 490 F . 3d 840, 844 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng D i a z v. S e c ’y f o rth e D e p ’t o f

C o rr ., 4 0 2 F .3 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 4 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ) . W e w ill af fi rm the deci si on of the S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da un l es s i t s dec i si on “ w as contra ry t o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rt , ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1), or there w as an

“ unr e a s onabl e de t e r m i na t i on of the f a c t s , ” i d. § 2254( d) ( 2) . “ [ A ] de t e r m i na t i on of a f a c tua l i s s ue m a de by a S t a t e c our t[ i s ] pr e s um e d t o be c orr e c t . T he appl i c a nt [ ha s ] the bur de n of

r e butt i ng the pr e s um pt i on of c orr e c tne s s by c l e a ra nd c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e .” I d . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) ; M a r q u a r d v . S e c ’y f o rth e D e p ’t o f

C o rr ., 42 9 F . 3d 12 78 , 13 03 (11th C i r. 20 05 ).

“ T he ‘ c ontr a ry t o’ a nd ‘ unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on’ c l a us e s of § 2254( d) ( 1)6

a r e s e pa r a t e ba s e s f

orr e vi e w i ng a s t a t e c our t ’ s de c i s i ons . ” P utm a n v. H e a d, 268 F . 3d 1223, 1241 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t i ng W i l l i a m s v. T a y l or , 529 U . S . 362, 404–05, 120 S . C t . 1495, 1519 ( 2000) ) . “ A s t a t e c our tde c i s i on i s ‘ c ontr a ry t o’ cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw i f e i ther ( 1) the st at e c ou rtappl i ed a rul e that contra di ct s the go verni ng l aw se tforth b y S up re m e C ou rtca se l aw , or (2) w hen f a c e d w ith m a te r ia lly in d is tin g u is h ab le f a c ts , th e s ta te c o u r t a rr iv e d a t a r e s u lt d if f e r e n t f r o m th a t r e a c h e d in a S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e .” I d. ( c i t i ng B ott os on v. M o o r e , 2 3 4 F .3 d 5 2 6 , 5 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . T h e d e c is io n o f th e F lo r id a c o u r t is an “ un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on ” of f eder al l aw i f the st at e c ou rtappl i ed the corre ct le g a l ru le f

r o m th e S u p r e m e C o u r t in a n “o b je c tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le ” m a n n e r . W oo dford v . V i sc i ot t i , 53 7 U . S . 19 , 25 , 12 3 S . C t . 35 7, 36 0 (20 02 ). T he fe dera l c a s e l a w r e l e va ntt o thi s a na l y s i s i s S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nt“ i n e xi s t e nc e a tthe tim e th e c o n v ic tio n b e c a m e f in a l.” S c h w ab v . C r o s b y , 4 5 1 F .3 d 1 3 0 8 , 1 3 2 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 06 ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 7 S . C t . 11 26 (200 7). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON B oth i s s ue s i n thi s appe a l i nvol ve the i nc ons i s t e ntpos i t i ons of the S t a t e of F l or i da i n the tr i a l s of

H unta nd F ot opoul os r e ga r di ng w he the rF ot opoul os dom i na t e d H unt . F i r s t , w e c ons i de rw he the rC orr e nt e w a s i ne f f e c t i ve w he n he f a i l e d t o i m p e a c h th e c a s e o f th e S t a t e wi th th e i n c o n s i s t e n tth e o r i e s . S e c o n d , we7

consi der w hether the use by the S t at e of the i ncon si st enttheori es vi ol at ed F o t o p o u l o s’ s ri g h tt o d u e p ro cess. A . Inef f ec t i ve A ss istan ce of

C ou nsel T he S ec re t ary of C orre ct i on s c on t ends thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otdefe r, as re qu i re d b y s ec t i on 22 54 (d)( 2), t o the fi nd i ng of the S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da that C orr e nt e m a de a s tr a t e gi c de c i s i on nott o c ha l l e nge the i nc ons i s t e ntthe or i e s of the S t a t e of F l or i da r e ga r di ng w he the rF ot opoul os dom i na t e d H unt . F ot opoul os r e s ponds tha tC orr e nt e w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o c ha l l e nge the i nc ons i s t e nt the or i e s of

the S t a t e a nd the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y c onc l ude d tha tthe appl i c a t i on of S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 104 S . C t . 2052 ( 1984) , by the F l or i da co u rt s w as “ o b

j ect i v el y u n reaso n ab l e. ” W e ag ree w i th th e S ecret ary. T he S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da re j ec t ed F ot op ou l os’ s a rgum entthathi s tri al c o u n s e l w a s in e f

f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to im p e a c h th e th e o ry o f th e S ta te b e c a u s e it foun d thattri al coun se l “ si m pl y m ade astra t egi c dec i si on ” nott o u se that i nf or m a t i on. F ot opoul os v. S t a t e , 838 S o. 2d 1122, 1130 ( F l a . 2003) . “ T he que s t i on of

w he the ra n a tt orne y ’ s a c t i ons w e r e a c tua l l y the pr oduc tof a t a c t i c a l or stra t egi c dec i si on i s a n i ss ue of fa ct , and a st at e c ou rt ’ s dec i si on concerni ng that i s s ue i s pr e s um pt i ve l y c orr e c t . ” P r ove nz a no v. S i ngl e t a ry , 148 F . 3d 1327, 1330 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . T he S upr e m e C our tof F l or i da a l s o he l d tha t , be c a us e the8

s tr a t e gi c de c i s i on by C orr e nt e w a s r e a s onabl e , C orr e nt e ’ s pe r f or m a nc e w a s not defi ci ent . F ot op ou l os, 83 8 S o. 2d at11 30 . T hi s app l i ca t i on of S tri ckl and w as re as on abl e. A s the di stri ctcourtst at ed i n i t s order , “ S tra t egi c c ho i ce s m ade a ft era thor ough i nve s t i ga t i on a r e vi r tua l l y una s s a i l abl e . ” S e e S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t690, 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 6 . U nd erthe gu i se of concl ud i ng thatthe S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da had un re as on abl y app l i ed S tri ckl and, the di stri ctcourt , w i tho utso st at i ng , subst i tut ed a n a l t e rna t i ve r e a di ng of the f a c tua l r e c or d f

orthe f i ndi ng of the S upr e m e C our tof F l ori da. D uri ng the evi dent i ary hea ri ng of hi s m ot i on for post -c on vi ct i on re l i ef un der R ul e 3. 85 0, F ot op ou l os as ked C orre nt e, “ W hy no tm ake the ar gu m entthat th e S ta te is n o t b e in g c o n s is te n t h e r e ? ” C o rr e n te r e s p o n d e d , “I d o n ’t r e a lly r e c a ll the tho ug htproces s on that . I c an’ tansw erthat . ” R e l y i ng on thi s t e s t i m ony , the di s tr i c tc our tf

ound tha tC orr e nt e ’ s “ f

a i l ur e t o f

oc us on the S t a t e ’ s i nc ons i s t e nt por tr a y a l of

M s . H untw a s nota ‘ s tr a t e gi c de c i s i on. ’ ” T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d not m e nt i on w he the rorhow F ot opoul os ha d pr e s e nt e d “ c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng evi dence” t o rebutthe fa ctual fi nd i ng of the S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da that C orre nt e m ade astra t egi c dec i si on . 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(e) (1). A r e vi e w of

C orr e nt e ’ s e nt i r e t e s t i m ony , i ns t e a d of the s ni ppe tr e l i e d upon by the di s tr i c tc ourt , a m pl y s uppor t s the f i ndi ng of the S upr e m e C our tof

F l or i da9

tha tC orr e nt e m a de a s tr a t e gi c de c i s i on. C orr e nt e e xpl a i ne d tha tthe dom i na t i on th e o ry w a s n o t a c e n tr a l c o m p o n e n t o f th e c a s e a g a in s t F o to p o u lo s ; C o rr e n te pres ent ed evi dence thatre bu tt ed the do m i nat i on theory; and the do m i nat i on theory o f th e S tate w as n o t n ec es sa rily in co n sisten t w ith th e th eo ry ad v an ce d in H u n t’ s s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ng. C orr e nt e t e s t i f i e d tha tF ot opoul os ’ s s ugge s t i on tha the shou l d h ave r ebut t ed the do m i nat i on theory “ pres up po se s that[the S t at e] w as re ally tryin g to p ro v e th at [F o to p o u lo s] d o m in ated [H u n t] . I d o n ’tth in k th at th at’s ho w i tca m e dow n i n o ur tri al . ” C orre nt e di d n otthi nk thatthe do m i nat i on theory “w a s a m a

jo rth ru s t o f

[ th e S ta te ’s ] c a s e .” C o rr e n te te s tif ie d th a t “a n y e m p h a s is pl ac ed on the fa ctthatshe w as do m i nat ed . . . w as re bu tt ed by a l otof other e v id e n c e .” H e “th o u g h t th e e v id e n c e in th e v id e o tap e a n d th e o th e re v id e n c e in th e tr i a l d i s p r o v e d th a tth e o ry o n i t s o wn . ” C o rr e n t e a l s o d i d n o tp e r c e i v e th e two th e o r ie s a s n e c e s s a r ily in c o n s is te n t. H e “f e lt th a t th e th e o ry o f

th e p r o s e c u tio n in [H un t ’ s s ent enci ng ] fi tthe evi dence thatthey pre se nt ed and thatthere w as another i nt erpret at i on . ” T h e S u p re m e C o u rt o f F lo rid a r ea so n ab ly co n clu d ed th at C o rr en te’s “s tr a te g ic ” d e c is io n w a s n o t d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o r m a n c e . E v id e n c e th a t th e S ta te pr e s e nt e d i nc ons i s t e ntthe or i e s , on the one ha nd, w oul d ha ve de tr a c t e d f r om F ot op ou l os’ s m ai n d ef

ense of ac tual i nn ocence i n the gu i l tph as e of hi s tri al . H ad10

F o to p o u lo s in tro d u ce d ev id en ce in h is trial th at th e S tate ar g u ed at H u n t’ s s e n te n c in g th a t s h e w a s n o t c o n tr o lle d b y F o to p o u lo s , th a t e v id e n c e s till w o u ld have confi rm ed thatthe S t at e c on si st ent l y a rgued i n b oth tri al s thatF ot op ou l os had a r ol e i n the m ur de r s . I f C orr e nt e ha d c ha l l e nge d the i nc ons i s t e ntthe or i e s , on the othe rha nd, i n the pe na l ty pha s e , w hi c h di d notf oc us on the a l l e ge d dom i na t i on, C orr e nt e w oul d ha ve ope ne d the doorf orthe S t a t e t o r e vi e w a l l of the e vi de nc e of F ot opoul os ’ s dom i na t i on of H unttha tha d be e n s uc c e s s f ul l y a dva nc e d dur i ng the g u ilt p h a s e . C o rr e n te r e a s o n ab ly b e lie v e d th a t in th e g u ilt p h a s e h e h a d s u f f ic ie n tly re bu tt ed the do m i nat i on theory butthati n the penal ty phase the subj ec tw as bett er l e f ta l one . I n the l i ghtof

thi s r e c or d, w e c a nnots a y tha tthe de c i s i on of the S upr e m e C our tof

F l or i da w a s a n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of S tr i c kl a nd. E v e n if w e w e r e to a s s u m e th a t C o rr e n te ’s a s s is ta n c e w a s d e f ic ie n t, F ot opoul os ha s note s t abl i s he d tha the w a s pr e j udi c e d. F ot opoul os a r gue s tha tthe j ury , i f pr e s e nt e d w i th the i nc ons i s t e ntthe or i e s of the S t a t e , m a y notha ve re com m ended a sent ence of death, bu tthe S up re m e C ou rti nstruct s us t o “ consi der the t ot al i ty of the evi dence before the j ud ge or j ury” w hen eval uat i ng w hether de f i c i e ntpe r f

or m a nc e ha s pr e

j udi c e d a de f

e nda nt . S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t695, 104 S . C t. a t 2 0 6 9 . T h e d e f

ic ie n t p e r f

o r m a n c e is p r e

ju d ic ia l if

“th e r e is a r e a s o n ab le pr obabi l i ty tha t , abs e ntthe e rr or s , the s e nt e nc e r. . . w oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe11

b a la n c e o f

a g g r a v a tin g a n d m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s d id n o t w a rr a n t d e a th .” I d .

“ A r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty i s a pr obabi l i ty s uf f i c i e ntt o unde r m i ne c onf i de nc e i n the ou t com e. ” I d. at69 4, 10 4 S . C t . at20 68 . F ot op ou l os do es no tdi sput e thathe w as the “ pr i m e m ot i va t or ” a nd “ bor e pr i m e r e s pons i bi l i ty ” f ortw o m ur de r s a nd the a tte m p te d m u r d e ro f

h is w if e . F o to p o u lo s , 8 3 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 2 9 . O u rc o n f id e n c e in F o to p o u lo s ’s s e n te n c e o f d e a th is n o t u n d e r m in e d w h e n h e d o e s n o t d is p u te h is p ri m ary resp o n si b i l i ty fo r th e o rch estrat i o n o f th ese b i zarre an d g ri sl y cri m es. B . D ue P r oc e s s V

i olat i on T h e S e c r e ta ry o f

C o rr e c tio n s a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m p o u n d e d its e rr orw he n i tc onc l ude d tha tthe S t a t e ha d vi ol a t e d F ot opoul os ’ s r i ghtt o due pr oc e s s by pr e s e nt i ng i nc ons i s t e ntthe or i e s aboutF ot opoul os ’ s dom i na t i on of H unt i n the tr i a l s of

F ot opoul os a nd H unt . T he S e c r e t a ry c ont e nds tha tthe de c i s i on of th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f

F lo r id a w a s n o t c o n tr a ry to “c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d ” f e d e r a l la w . F ot opoul os r e s ponds tha tB e r ge rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 295 U . S . 78, 55 S . C t . 629 ( 1935) , s uppor t s the de c i s i on of the di s tr i c tc our ttha tthe i nc ons i s t e ntthe or i e s of th e S t at e v i o l at ed h i s ri g h tt o d u e p ro cess. A g ai n , w e ag ree w i th th e S ecret ary. T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatthe use by the S t at e of i ncon si st enttheori es w as prosec ut ori al m i sc on du ctthat“ am ou nt ed t o a du e proces s vi ol at i on . ” I n s u p p o r t o f

its c o n c lu s io n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e lie d o n th e d e c is io n s o f c ir c u it c o u r ts12

a nd the de c i s i on of

the S upr e m e C our ti n B r a ds ha w v. S tum pf , 545 U . S . 175, 125 S . C t. 2 3 9 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . T h is a n a ly s is is c o n tr a ry to o u rp r e c e d e n ts .

“ C l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w ‘ r e f

e r s t o the hol di ngs , a s oppos e d t o the di ct a, of the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on s a s of the t i m e of the re l evantst at e c ou rt d e c i s i o n . ’ ” Pu tma n , 2 6 8 F. 3 d a t1 2 4 1 ( q u o t i n g W i l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U . S. a t4 1 2 , 1 2 0 S. C t . at15 23 ) ( al t er at i on s om i tt ed)) . F ot op ou l os’ s c on vi ct i on beca m e f i nal on M ay 17, 1993. F ot opoul os v. F l or i da , 508 U . S . 924, 113 S . C t . 2377 ( 1993) ( de ny i ng c e r t . ) . I ti s f

a nc i f ul t o s ugge s ttha tthe de c i s i on of the S upr e m e C our tof

F l or i da w a s s om e how “ c ontr a ry t o . . . c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d F e de r a l l a w , a s de t e r m i ne d by the S upr e m e C our t , ” 28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) ( 1) , w he n the onl y de c i s i on of the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es m ent i on ed by the di stri ctcourtw as deci ded tw e l ve y e a r s l a t e r . M or e ove r , the B r a ds ha w C our tdi d nothol d tha tthe us e of i nc ons i s t e ntthe or i e s i n the pr os e c ut i on of tw o de f e nda nt s vi ol a t e s the r i ghtt o due p ro cess. A f te rth e S e c r e ta ry f

ile d a m o tio n f

o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t to a m e n d its j udgm e nt , F e d. R . C i v. P . 59( e ) , the di s tr i c tc our tr e c ogni z e d i t s e rr ora nd r e f e r e nc e d B e r ge rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 295 U . S . 78, 55 S . C t . 629 ( 1935) , a s the de c i s i on of

the S upr e m e C our ttha ts uppor t e d i t s c onc l us i on. T hi s pos t - hoc r a t i o n a l e a l s o f

a i l e d t o g i v e th e p r o p e rd e f e r e n c e t o th e d e c i s i o n o f th e Su p r e me13

C o u r t o f F lo r id a . I n B e r g e r , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o r d e r e d a n e w tr ia l a f te rit d e te r m in e d th a t th e p r o s e c u to rh a d s tru c k “f o u l” b lo w s . I d . a t 8 8 , 5 5 S . C t. a t 6 3 3 . T he C ou rtdesc ri bed the cond uctof the prosec ut or as “ i nd ec orou s a nd i m prop er ” be c a us e he , a m ong othe rthi ngs , bul l i e d w i tne s s e s a nd m i s s t a t e d f a c t s , butthe B e r ge rC our tdi d notm e nt i on a ny i s s ue aboutthe us e of a l l e ge d i nc ons i s t e nt the or i e s . I d. a t84, 55 S . C t . a t631. T he cond uctof the S t at e i n thi s app ea l i s i n n o w ay si m i l art o the m i sc on du ct o f th e p r o s e c u to rin B e r g e r . M o r e o v e r , a s J u s tic e T h o m a s e x p la in e d in h is c onc urr e nc e i n B r a ds ha w , “ [ the S upr e m e ] C our tha s ne ve rhi nt e d, m uc h l e s s he l d, tha tthe D ue P r oc e s s C l a us e pr e ve nt s a S t a t e f r om pr os e c ut i ng de f

e nda nt s ba s e d on i n co n si st en tth eo ri es. ” 5 4 5 U . S . at1 9 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t . at2 4 0 9 (T h o m as, J. concurri ng ). F or thatre as on , w e c anno tsa y thatthe deci si on of the S up re m e C ou rt of F l or i da “ w a s c ontr a ry t o . . . c l e a r l y e s t abl i s he d F e de r a l l a w , a s de t e r m i ne d by the S up re m e C ou rt . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1). I V . CONCL US I ON T h e j u d g m en to f th e d i stri ctco u rti s R EVER SED a n d ju d g m e n t is RE ND E RE D in f

a v o ro f th e r e s p o n d e n t.