FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT November

9, 2007 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- 11943

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 1 5 9 1 - C V- T - 2 4 T GW G E O R G E M I C H A E L H O D G E S , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu 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 , 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 , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ 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

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 9, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

I n 1986 B e tty R i c ks , a tw e nty - y e a r - ol d c onve ni e nc e s t or e c l e r k, f i l e d a c r i m i na l c om pl a i nta ga i ns tG e or ge M i c ha e l H odge s c ha r gi ng hi m w i th i nde c e nt e xpos ur e . A f

t e rhi s othe re f

f or t s t o di s s ua de he rf

r om pr os e c ut i ng hi m f

a i l e d, H od ges s ho tM s. R i cks tw i ce i n the head and n ec k w i th a ri fl e, ki l l i ng her. T hat sa ved H od ges f

rom the i nd ec entexpo sure char ge, a m i sdem ea no r, bu ti tl anded h im o n F lo r id a ’s d e a th r o w w h e r e h e h a s b e e n f o rth e la s t e ig h te e n y e a r s . M o re factual detai l s an d th e p ro ced u ral h i st o ry i n v o l v i n g H o d g es’ conv i ct i on for f

i rs tdegree mu rderand d ea th sent ence ar e s etou ti n the st at e c ou rt d e c i s i o n s i n th e c a s e , a n d i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e r s d e n y i n g H o d g e s ’ 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 p etit io n an d h is m o ti o n s r elated to th at d en ial. S ee H o d g es v . S ec ’y, D ep ’t o f C o rr . ( Ho d g e s V) , No . 8 : 0 3 - c v - 1 5 9 1 - T - 2 4 T GW, 2 0 0 7 WL 9 4 9 4 2 1 , a t* 1 ( M. D. F l a . M a r . 27, 2007) ; H odge s v. S e c ’ y , D e p’ tof C or r . ( H odge s I V ) , N o. 8 :0 3 - c v - 0 1 5 9 1 - S C B - T G W , 2 0 0 7 W L 6 0 4 9 8 2 , a t * 1

– 4 ( M .D . F la . F e b . 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 ) ; H o d g e s v . S ta te ( H o d g e s I I I ) , 8 8 5 S o . 2 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 3

– 4 5 ( F la . 2 0 0 4 ) ; H o d g e s v . S ta te ( H odge s I I ) , 619 S o. 2d 272, 273 ( F l a . 1993) ; H odge s v. S t a t e ( H odge s I ) , 595 S o. 2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 0

– 3 1 ( F la .) , v a c a te d , 5 0 6 U .S . 8 0 3 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 3 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Th i s i s H o d g e s ’ ap p e a l f r o m th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n td e n y i n g h i m § 22 54 re l i ef

fr om hi s m urder convi ct i on and d ea th sent ence .3 I. T he di s tr i c tc our tnotonl y r e j e c t e d a l l of

H odge s ’ c l a i m s f

orr e l i e f a nd de ni e d hi s § 2254 pe t i t i on w i th pr e j udi c e , buti ta l s o de ni e d hi m a c e r t i f i c a t e of ap p eal ab i l i ty. H odge s V , 2007 W L 949421, a t*4; H odge s I V , 2007 W L 604982, a t*40. A s he w a s e nt i t l e d t o do, H odge s r e ne w e d hi s r e que s tf ora C O A by f

i l i ng a m ot i on i n thi s C our t . S e e F e d. R . A pp. P . 22( b) ( 1) ; H unt e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 101 F . 3d 15 65 , 15 75 (11t h C i r. 19 96 ) ( en banc) (“ U nd erthe pl ai n l angu age of the rul e, an appl i ca ntfor the w ri tget s tw o b i t es atthe appeal ce rt i fi ca t e app l e: on e bef ore the di stri ctj ud ge, and i f thaton e i s unsucce ss ful , he get s ase cond on e bef ore a c i r c ui tj udge . ” ) , a br oga t e d on othe rgr ounds by L i ndh v. M urphy , 521 U . S . 320, 11 7 S . C t . 20 59 (199 7). H od ges’ m ot i on i n thi s C ou rtar gu ed thathe had m ade a s ubs t a nt i a l s how i ng of

the de ni a l of

a c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght , a s r e qui r e d by the s t a tut e , 28 U . S . C . § 2253( c ) ( 2) . T he s t a tut e a l s o r e qui r e s tha ta C O A s pe c i f y the is s u e o ris s u e s f

o rw h ic h th e r e q u ir e d s h o w in g h a s b e e n m a d e . I d . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 3 ) . H od ges’ m ot i on t o thi s C ou rtar gu ed thathe had m ade thatshow i ng as t o the deni al of re l i ef on four grou nd s, ea ch of w hi ch corr es po nd ed t o a cl ai m i n h i s habea s p e titio n . A s o u rru le s p r o v id e , H o d g e s ’ C O A m o tio n w e n t to a s in g le ju d g e o f th is C ou rt . S ee 11 th C i r. R . 22 -1(d). T hatj ud ge i ss ued an o rdergrant i ng the m ot i on as4

t o G r ounds I a nd I I I , butde ny i ng i ta s t o G r ounds I I a nd I V . S e e H odge s v. A tto rn e y G e n ., N o . 0 7 - 1 1 9 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . M a y 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 ) . T h e o r d e rm e a n t th a t a C OA h a d i s s u e d a s t o th e two g r o u n d s s p e c i f i e d i n th e o r d e ra n d o n l y th o s e two gr ounds . U nde rthe rul e s of thi s C our t , H odge s c oul d ha ve m ove d f or r e c ons i de r a t i on, a s ki ng the C our tt o e xpa nd the C O A t o c ove rthe tw o gr ounds on w h ic h it h a d b e e n d e n ie d . S e e 1 1 th C ir . R . 2 2 - 1 ( d ) . I f H o d g e s h a d d o n e th a t, h is m ot i on w oul d ha ve gone be f or e a thr e e -

j udge pa ne l . 11th C i r . R . 27- 1( d) . B ut H odge s di d notf

i l e a m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rthe de ni a l of a C O A on G r ounds I I a nd I V . I n s te a d , H o d g e s s im p ly f ile d h is b r ie f

s o n th e m e r its a r g u in g n o t o n ly G r o u n d s I a n d I I I , w h ic h th e C O A p e r m itte d , b u t a ls o G r o u n d I I w h ic h it d id n o t. (A pp ar ent l y, he gave up on G roun d IV . ) I n h i s openi ng and repl y bri ef s H od ges s e e ks t o e xc us e hi s di s r e ga r d of the pa r tof

the C O A or de rr e f

us i ng hi m pe r m i s s i on t o p roce ed on G roun d II a s nothi ng m ore than w hat11 th C i r. R . 27 -1(g) t erm s “ [a ] rul i ng on a m ot i on orothe ri nt e r l oc ut or y m a tt e r , ” w hi c h unde rtha trul e i s “ not bi ndi ng upon the pa ne l t o w hi c h the appe a l i s a s s i gne d on the m e r i t s , a nd the m er i t s panel m ay al t er , am end, or vacat e i t . ” H od ges a sks i n h i s bri ef s thatw e, as th e m e r i t s p a n e l , u s e o u rR u l e 2 7 - 1 ( g ) p o we rt o o v e rru l e th e o r d e rd e n y i n g a C OA on G roun d II, granta c ert i fi ca t e on t hatgrou nd , and p roce ed t o d ec i de the m att er5

o n th e m e r its a s th o u g h th e C O A o r d e rh a d p e r m itte d it a ll a lo n g . H odge s ’ pos i t i on i s a bol d one . H e w oul d ha ve us hol d tha ta n appe l l a nt turned d ow n o n o ne or m ore i ss ues a tthe C O A st age has the ri gh t , un der 11t h C i r. R . 27- 1( g) , t o br i e f

thos e i s s ue s on the m e r i t s a ny w a y , f or c i ng hi s oppone nta nd th i s C o u r tt o c o n s i d e rth e m th e s a m e a s i f th e y h a d b e e n i n c l u d e d i n th e C OA order. A cc ept i ng H od ges’ po si t i on w ou l d evi sc er at e the re qu i re m enti n § 22 53 (c ) tha ta C O A s pe c i f

y the i s s ue s tha tw i l l be c ons i de r e d a tthe m e r i t s s t a ge of the appeal . T here w ou l d b e no p oi nti n h avi ng a C O A order s peci fy i ss ues i f i tdo es n o tl i m i tth o se th atm ay b e b ri efed , an d a l i m i t at i o n th atm ay b e i g n o red b y a d is ap p o in te d ap p e lla n t is n o lim ita tio n a t a ll. T he de c i s i on a boutw hi c h i s s ue s a r e t o be c ons i de r e d on the m e r i t s m us tbe m a de on the f

r onte nd of

a n appe a l , be f

or e the i s s ue s a r e br i e f

e d, a r gue d, a nd de c i de d on the m e r i t s . G onz a l e z v. S e c ’ y f orD e p’ tof

C orr . , 366 F . 3d 1253, 1267 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( e n ba nc ) ( “ T he c e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l a bi l i ty r e qui r e m e nti s t o be adm i ni st er ed atthe thres ho l d o f the appeal . ”) . O therw i se , the § 2 25 3(c) req u i rem en tw i l l n o tserv e i t s p u rp o se, w h i ch i s t o w eed o u tn o n -su b st an t i al i ssu es i n app ea l s bef

ore the part i es and t he courti m m er se them se l ves i n the m ore s ubs t a nt i a l i s s ue s w hi c h de s e r ve c l os e s c rut i ny on the m e r i t s . I d. ( “ [ T ] he c e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l a bi l i ty r e qui r e m e nti s nota t oothl e s s one , a nd i ts houl d be6

appl i e d w i th i t s purpos e i n m i nd, w hi c h i s t o s e pa r a t e outthos e appe a l s [ a nd i ss ues] thatdese rve m ore c ar ef ul att ent i on fr om the on es thatdo no t . ”) . T here w ou l d b e no p oi nti n w ee di ng ou ti ss ues bef ore the m er i t s bri ef

s a re fi l ed i f a n appe l l a nti s f

r e e t o thr ow the w e e ds ba c k i nt o thos e br i e f s . W e w i l l notappl y our l ocal rul e 27-1(g) i n a m anner thatef fe ct i vel y r epea l s § 22 53 (c )( 3). T h is is n o t th e f

ir s t tim e th a t a h a b e a s p e titio n e rh a s b r ie f e d a n d a tte m p te d to h a v e u s d e c id e is s u e s b e y o n d th o s e o n w h ic h th e C O A w a s g r a n te d . I t h ap p e n e d in M urra y v. U ni t ed S t at es , 14 5 F . 3d 12 49 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ). W e hel d i n thatca se that the pl a i n i m por tof

28 U . S . C . § 2253( c ) ( 3) m a nda t e s tha tr e vi e w on the m e r i t s be l i m i t e d t o the i s s ue s s pe c i f i e d i n the C O A or de r . I d. a t1250–51. A s w e e xpl a i ne d,

“ the r e w oul d be l i tt l e poi nti n C ongr e s s r e qui r i ng s pe c i f i c a t i on of

the i s s ue s f

or w hi ch a C O A w as grant ed i f app el l at e r evi ew w as no tt o b e l i m i t ed t o the i ss ues s p e c i f i e d . ” I d . ( c i t a t i o n o mi tt e d ) . W e p o i n t e d o u tth a te v e n d u r i n g th e p r e - A ED PA e r a w h e n a c e r tif

ic a te o f p r o b a b le c a u s e to ap p e a l w a s g r a n te d o n f e w e rth a n a ll i ss ues, w e hel d thatappel l at e r evi ew w as l i m i t ed t o the i ss ues s peci fi ed. Id. “ In vi ew of thatpri or ci rc ui tl aw , i tw ou l d b e a no m al ou s f or us t o h ol d, no w thatthere i s a n i ss ue spec i fi ca t i on re qu i re m ent , se e [ 28 U . S . C . ] § 2 25 3(c) (3), thatthe appeal i s notl i m i t e d t o the i s s ue s s pe c i f i e d. ” I d. ; s e e a l s o M a ha r a j v. S e c ’ y f

orD e p’ tof C orr. , 43 2 F . 3d 12 92 , 13 02 –0 3 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( l i m i t i ng re vi ew t o the i ss ues7

c e r t i f i e d i n the C O A ) ; T om pki ns v. M oor e , 193 F . 3d 1327, 1332 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( “ [ L ] e tthi s opi ni on s e r ve a s c l e a rnot i c e ” tha t“ [ a ] r gum e nt s i n a br i e f a ddr e s s i ng i ss ues notcovered i n the ce rt i fi ca t e, i ncl ud i ng any e xp ansi on grant ed by the court of appe a l s , w i l l notbe c ons i de r e d a s a t i m e l y appl i c a t i on f ore xpa ns i on of

the ce rt i fi ca t e; tho se i ss ues s i m pl y w i l l no tbe re vi ew ed. ”) . H od ges poi nt s t o Jon es v. U ni t ed S t at es , 22 4 F . 3d 12 51 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ), w hi c h c a m e tw o y e a r s a f t e rthe M ur r a y de c i s i on a nd t o the e xt e ntof a ny i nc ons i s t e nc y w i th i t , m us ty i e l d t o tha te a r l i e rde c i s i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O hayon, 48 3 F . 3d 12 81 , 12 89 (11t h C i r. 20 07 ) ( “ W hen a deci si on of thi s C ou rt confl i ct s w i th an earl i erdeci si on thathas notbeen ov erturned en b anc, w e a re bound by the e a r l i e rde c i s i on. ” ) ; C ohe n v. O f f i c e D e pot , I nc . , 204 F . 3d 1069, 1072 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( e n ba nc ) ( s a m e ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t e e l e , 147 F . 3d 1316, 1317–18 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( s a m e ) . I n a n y e v e n t, th e J o n e s c a s e is d is tin g u is h a b le . Jones, w ho had b ee n g ra nt ed a l i m i t ed C O A by the di stri ctcourt , had m ov ed i n thi s C ou rtt o enl ar ge the ce rt i fi ca t e by a dd i ng on e i ss ue. Jones, 22 4 F . 3d at 12 56 . A ft era s i ng l e j ud ge of thi s C ou rtdeni ed hi s m ot i on , Jones m ov ed for panel re consi dera t i on . Id. A pp ar ent l y, Jones’ bri ef on the m er i t s w as som ehow fi l ed be f or e hi s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rw a s rul e d on, be c a us e the gove rnm e ntf i l e d a m ot i on “ t o d i sm i ss the po rt i on s of J on es ’ s app ea l thataddres se d u ncer t i fi ed8

i s s ue s . ” I d. T he n, atw o- j udge pa ne l c a rr i e d both J one s ’ m ot i on t o e xpa nd the C O A a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s m o tio n to d is m is s w ith th e c a s e , w h ic h o r d in a r ily w ou l d l ea ve the m ot i on s f or the m er i t s panel t o d ec i de. Id. L at er , ho w ever , before the c a s e gott o the m e r i t s pa ne l , a thr e e - j udge m ot i ons pa ne l de ni e d J one s ’ m ot i on t o e xpa nd the C O A butc a rr i e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s i nt e r tw i ne d m ot i on t o di s m i s s the part s notcovered i n the C O A w i th the ca se t o the m er i t s panel . Id. Itw as un der th o s e c o n v o lu te d a n d c o n f u s in g c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t th e m e r its p a n e l d e c id e d to deny the go vernm ent ’ s m ot i on t o d i sm i ss (the fi rs tt i m e a ny j ud ge or courthad de c i de d tha tm ot i on) , a nd t o r e vi s i tthe de ni a l of J one s ’ m ot i on t o e xpa nd a nd gr a nt it. I d . T ha ti s notw ha tw e ha ve he r e . H odge s di d notm ove f orr e c ons i de r a t i on of the s i ngl e -

j udge or de rpa r t i a l l y de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f ora C O A . N o m ot i on r e l a t i ng t o the C O A w a s c a rr i e d w i th the c a s e t o the m e r i t s pa ne l . T he r e w e r e no c onf us i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s le a v in g d o u b t ab o u t w h ic h is s u e s w o u ld b e a d d r e s s e d o n th e m e r its . I n s te a d , th is is a s tr a ig h t M u rr a y ty p e s itu a tio n w h e r e th e ap p e lla n t s im p ly c h o s e to f lo u t th e c le a rC O A o r d e rlim itin g th e is s u e s th a t c o u ld b e b r ie f e d o n th e m e r its . W h a te v e rm a y b e s a id a b o u t th e J o n e s d e c is io n , it d id n o t g iv e ap p e lla n ts lic e n s e to d o th a t. I n lig h t o f

o u re a r lie rM u rr a y d e c is io n , it c o u ld n o t h a v e d o n e s o . F orthe s e r e a s ons , w e w i l l s tr i ke the por t i ons of H odge s ’ br i e f

a ddr e s s i ng9

G roun d II of hi s m ot i on for aC O A , because no cer t i fi ca t e w as grant ed as t o that g r o u n d o ris s u e . I n ta k in g th is a c tio n a n d m a k in g th e s e s ta te m e n ts , w e d o n o t m e a n to ru le ou tthe po ss i bi l i ty thati n an ext ra ordi nary ca se a m er i t s panel m ay deci de, af t er consi deri ng the m er i t s of a n i ss ue on w hi ch the C O A w as grant ed, t o exp and t he c e r t i f i c a t e t o i nc l ude a nothe ri s s ue . T ha ti s w ha thappe ne d i n C l a r k v. C r os by , 335 F . 3d 1303 ( 11th C i r . 2003) , w he r e the pa ne l , a f t e ror a l a r gum e nt , e xpa nde d the C O A t o i ncl ud e a n add i t i on al i ss ue, re qu es t ed supp l em ent al bri ef i ng on thati ss ue, and t hen d ec i ded i t . Id. at13 07 . Iti s one thi ng for a n app el l at e c ou rti n an u nu sual c a s e to b e p e r s u a d e d d u r in g its c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e m e r its o f

a g r a n te d is s u e to e xpa nd the C O A t o i nc l ude a r e l a t e d i s s ue a nd t o r e que s ts uppl e m e nt a l br i e f i ng on thatprevi ou sl y e xcl ud ed i ss ue. Iti s a no ther thi ng for a n app el l antt o si m pl y i gn ore the C O A order a nd bri ef any i ss ue he pl ea se s. W e r ec og ni ze the form erprac t i ce a n d c o n d e m n th e la tte r . II. O n e o f th e is s u e s o n w h ic h th e c e r tif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility w a s g r a n te d is H od ges’ cont ent i on thathi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh tt o con fr on t at i on w as vi ol at ed w hen the st at e tri al courtadm i tt ed atbo th the gu i l tand p enal ty s t ages of hi s tri al hear sa y st at em ent s by the vi ct i m , B etty R i cks. T he ou t -of- courtst at em ent s c on ce rned10

H odge s ’ a tt e m pt s t o ge the rt o dr op the i nde c e nte xpos ur e c ha r ge s a ga i ns thi m a nd h e rin s is te n c e o n g o in g f o rw a r d w ith th e p r o s e c u tio n .

A. A tthe gui l ts t a ge , one de t e c t i ve t e s t i f i e d tha tdur i ng hi s i nve s t i ga t i on of the i nde c e nte xpos ur e c ha r ge M s . R i c ks t ol d hi m tha ts he w a nt e d t o pr e s s c ha r ge s , a nd s h e w a s a d a m a n t ab o u t d o in g s o . A nothe rde t e c t i ve a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha tM s . R i c ks h a d to ld h im th a t s h e w a s a d a m a n t ab o u t p r o s e c u tin g H o d g e s . T hatt es t i m on y w as in tr o d u c e d a t th e g u ilt s ta g e to p r o v e m o tiv e , a n d th e p r o s e c u to ru s e d it to a r g u e to the j ury thatal tho ug h H od ges had been say i ng thatthe expo sure i nci dentw as an a c c id e n t, th e v ic tim w a s a d a m a n t ab o u t p r o s e c u tin g h im f o rit. T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe adm i ss i on of the vi ct i m ’ s out -ofco u rtst at em en t s atth e g u i l tst ag e w as erro r u n d er F l o ri d a l aw b ecau se th o se st at em ent s w er e hea rs ay t o w hi ch no exce pt i on appl i ed. H od ges I , 59 5 S o. 2d at 93 1– 32 . T he courtdi d n otre vers e the conv i ct i on , ho w ever , because i tconcl ud ed tha tthe a dm i s s i on of

the s t a t e m e nt s w a s ha r m l e s s . T he c our te xpl a i ne d: W e th en m u std et erm i n e w h eth er th e ad m i ssi o n w as h arm l ess error. O n the day of the ho m i ci de H od ges w as sc hedu l ed for apretri al di vers i on i nt ervi ew on the i nd ec entexpo sure char ge w hi ch had b ee n i ni t i at ed by the vi ct i m ’ s c om pl ai nt . O n thatdat e, bu tsom et i m e a ft er th e h o m ic id e , H o d g e s c a lle d th e m e d ia to ro f th e C o m m u n ity M e d i a t i o n Pr o g r a m, t o l d h e rth e r e w a s n o r e a s o n f o rh i m t o c o me th r o u g h d iv e r s io n , a n d a s k e d f o rth e c a s e to b e s e n t b a c k to th e s ta te a tto rn e y ’s o f

f ic e . T h u s , it ap p e a r s c le a rth a t H o d g e s k n e w o f h is11

c o n tin u e d p r o s e c u tio n . T h e v ic tim ’s s ta te m e n ts o f h e rd e s ir e to c ont i nue pr os e c ut i on be c om e c um ul a t i ve a nd c oul d notha ve , i n a nd of them se l ves, been a cr i t i ca l fa ct or i n the j ury’ s del i bera t i on . W e, there fore , concl ud e thatadm i tt i ng the det ec t i ves’ t es t i m on y w as harm l es s e rr or. I d. a t932. C on fr on t ed w i th the C on fr on t at i on C l ause cl ai m , the di stri ctcourtdeni ed r e l i e f on i t , a gr e e i ng w i th the F l or i da S upr e m e C our ttha tthe e rr ori n a dm i tt i ng the t es t i m on y w as harm l es s. H od ges I V , 20 07 W L 60 49 82 , at*5 . T he di stri ctcourt r e a s one d: T he a dm i s s i on of the de t e c t i ve s ’ t e s t i m ony a s t o the out - of - c our ts t a t e m e nt s m a de by R i c ks w a s e rr or ; how e ve r , the e rr or w a s h a r m le s s . E v e n w ith o u t th e h e a r s a y s ta te m e n ts , th e r e w a s a m p le evi dence of H od ges’ gu i l t . H od ges’ truck w as ob se rved atthe m urder sc ene a tthe t i m e of the m urder. W i tness es di sput ed hi s a l i bi defe nse. H od ges c on fe ss ed ki l l i ng R i cks t o tw o d i ff er entpeop l e. I d. W e ne e d notde c i de w he the rthe a dm i s s i on a tthe gui l ts t a ge of the t e s t i m ony a b o u t M s . R ic k s ’ s ta te m e n ts to th e d e te c tiv e s v io la te d th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e . E ve n a s s um i ng tha ti tdi d, a ny vi ol a t i on w a s ha r m l e s s . U nde rF ry v. P l i l e r , 551 U . S . ___, 12 7 S . C t . 23 21 (200 7), i f the st at e c ou rtdi d n otappl y the corre ct harm l es s e rr or st andard, or even i f i tdi d n oteven rec og ni ze thatthere w as error, fe dera l habeas re l i ef

i s s t i l l du e t o b e deni ed i f the const i tut i on al error w as ha r m l e s s . F ry , 127 S . C t . a t2328. A nd ha r m l e s s ne s s i s t o be j udge d unde rthe12

B r e c htv. A br a ha m s on, 507 U . S . 619, 113 S . C t . 1710 ( 1993) , s t a nda r d of

“ s ubs t a nt i a l a nd i nj ur i ous e f f e c t , ” i ns t e a d of

unde rthe C hapm a n v. C a l i f or ni a , 386 U .S . 1 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 8 2 4 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , “h a r m le s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t” s ta n d a r d . F ry , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 2 3 2 8 . A s s u m in g th a t it w a s e rr o r , th e a d m is s io n a t th e g u ilt s ta g e o f th e s ta te m e n ts by the vi ct i m abou ther di sc ussi on s w i th H od ges c on ce rni ng the i nd ec entexpo sure c ha r ge di d notha ve a s ubs t a nt i a l a nd i nj ur i ous e f f e c ton the j ur y ve r di c t . T he evi dence w enton l y t o m ot i ve, and as the F l ori da S up re m e C ou rtexpl ai ned, there w a s o th e re v id e n c e o f

m o tiv e . S e e H o d g e s I , 5 9 5 S o . 2 d a t 9 3 2 . M o r e o v e r , w h ile e vi de nc e of

m ot i ve i s a dm i s s i bl e a nd m a y be i m por t a nt , m ot i ve i s nota n e l e m e nt o f a m u r d e rp r o s e c u tio n . N o r to n v . S ta te , 7 0 9 S o . 2 d 8 7 , 9 2 ( F la . 1 9 9 7 ) . I ti s one type of e vi dence of gui l t . H er e, as the di stri ctcourtexpl ai ned, the ot her e vi dence o f H o d g e s ’ g u ilt w a s s tr o n g . H od ges I V , 20 07 W L 60 49 82 , at*5 . H od ges co n fessed t o tw o w i tn esses o n tw o sep arat e o ccasi o n s th ath e h ad k i l l ed M s. R i ck s, a w i tness pl ac ed hi s truck atthe sc ene of the m urder, and sever al w i tness es di s put e d hi s a l i bi de f

e ns e . B e c a us e a dm i s s i on of the t e s t i m ony i n que s t i on di d not have a s ub st ant i al and i nj uri ou s e ff ec ton the j ury ver di ct , the di stri ctcourt p r o p e r ly d e n ie d r e lie f

o n th is c la im .13 B . T he de t e c t i ve s ’ t e s t i m ony dur i ng the j ury pha s e of the s e nt e nc e s t a ge w e nt f ur the r . O ne of

the m t e s t i f

i e d tha tM s . R i c ks ha d t ol d hi m tha tH odge s ha d ke pt c om i ng by the pl a c e s he w or ke d “ ha r a s s i ng he r , try i ng t o ge the rt o dr op the char ges, and i tw as sc ar i ng her. ” T he l as tt i m e thatdet ec t i ve had t al ked w i th h er a b o u t th e p r o b le m w a s ju s t p r io rto h e rd e a th . T he ot her det ec t i ve t es t i fi ed thatM s. R i cks had t ol d h i m thaton se vera l oc c a s i ons H odge s ha d c om e i nt o the pl a c e s he w or ke d a s ki ng he rnott o pur s ue the c ha r ge s . T he de t e c t i ve s a i d tha the ha d e nc our a ge d he rnott o ba c k of f , buthe t es t i fi ed: “ S he di dn ’ tneed any pers uadi ng . S he w as adam antabou ti t . ” He r e c o u n te d th a t s h e h a d to ld h im th a t H o d g e s h a d b e e n “a n u is a n c e b e in g th e r e a ll the t i m e , c om i ng i n the m orni ng t i m e s w he ne ve rs he w oul d c om e t o w or k, dr i vi ng throu gh . T hi ng s l i ke that . S he w ou l d cal l the po l i ce . ” T h i s d et ect i v e’ s l ast c o n v e r s a tio n w ith M s . R ic k s w a s a b o u t th r e e w e e k s b e f o r e s h e w a s m u r d e r e d . D ebraR i cks, the vi ct i m ’ s s i st er , al so t es t i fi ed before the j ury a tthe se nt ence st age. S he re coun t ed ho w her s i st erhad cal l ed on e m orni ng and t ol d h erthat

“ H odge s , ” w ho w a s “ the one tha tf l a s he d m e , ” ha d c om e a nd a s ke d he rt o dr op the c ha r ge s . T he vi c t i m t ol d he rs i s t e rtha tH odge s ha d s a i d tha t , “ H e di dn’ tknow w ha the w a s doi ng, ” butthe vi c t i m ha d t ol d hi m tha t , “ W e l l , y ou s houl d ha ve14

tho ug htof thatbefore you d i d i t . ” T h e v ic tim to ld h e rs is te rth a t H o d g e s h a d s a id h e h a d a f

a m ily , a jo b , a n d a r e p u ta tio n to p r o te c t, b u t th a t s h e h a d r e p lie d , “W e ll, I’ m sorry, you k no w . I a m no t . ” T he evi dence of these ou t -of- courtst at em ent s by the vi ct i m w as i ntrodu ce d a tthe s e nt e nc e s t a ge t o pr ove the s t a tut ory a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e tha tthe m ur de r“ w a s c om m i tt e d t o di s ruptorhi nde rthe l a w f ul e xe r c i s e of

a ny g o v e rn m e n ta l f

u n c tio n o rth e e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

la w s .” S e e F la . S ta t. § 9 2 1 .1 4 1 ( 5 ) ( g ) . T he prosecut or re l i ed on thi s e vi dence for thatpu rpose, and i n sent enci ng H od ges to d e a th th e tr ia l c o u r t c ite d it in f in d in g th a t th e a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e e x is te d . (T h e co u rtal so fo u n d th atan ad d i t i o n al ag g rav at i n g ci rcu m st an ce ap p l i ed , b ecau se the m ur de r“ w a s c om m i tt e d i n a c ol d, c a l c ul a t e d, a nd pr e m e di t a t e d m a nne rw i thout a n y p r e te n s e o f

m o r a l o rle g a l ju s tif

ic a tio n .” S e e id . § 9 2 1 .1 4 1 ( 5 ) ( i) .) U nd erthe F l ori da capi t al pu ni shm entst atut e, thi s hea rs ay evi dence w as adm i ss i bl e a tthe se nt ence st age. Id. § 9 21 . 14 1(1) (a ny evi dence the tri al court de e m s pr oba t i ve “ m a y be r e c e i ve d, r e ga r dl e s s of i t s a dm i s s i bi l i ty unde rthe e x c lu s io n a ry ru le s o f

e v id e n c e , p r o v id e d th e d e f e n d a n t is a c c o r d e d a f

a ir oppor tuni ty t o r e buta ny he a r s a y s t a t e m e nt s ” ) ; s e e a l s o C ha ndl e rv. M oor e , 240 F .3 d 9 0 7 , 9 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( u p h o ld in g th e F lo r id a s ta tu te a g a in s t a C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e a tt a c k) . T he F l or i da S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe r e w a s no15

e rr ori n the a dm i s s i on of the e vi de nc e , H odge s I , 595 S o. 2d a t933, a s di d the d is tr ic t c o u r t, H o d g e s I V , 2 0 0 7 W L 6 0 4 9 8 2 , a t * 6 . W e a gr e e , buta dd a nothe rgr ound a s ourpr i m a ry hol di ng a boutthi s c l a i m of r e lie f . T h e r e a s o n th e S ta te h a d to r e ly o n w h a t M s . R ic k s to ld o th e r s in o r d e rto prov e w hatH od ges had sa i d and do ne t o h eri s thatshe w as no tavai l abl e t o t es t i fy hers el f. T he re as on she w as no tavai l abl e, of course , i s thatH od ges had m urdered h e r , a f a c t p r o v e n b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t b e f o r e th e s e n te n c e s ta g e b e g a n . H od ges’ com pl ai nt s abo utthe S t at e unfai rl y usi ng M s. R i cks’ ou t -of- court de c l a r a t i ons a ga i ns thi m br i ng t o m i nd the ol d t a l e a bouta de f e nda ntc onvi c t e d of m urderi ng hi s par ent s w ho dem anded l eni ency on the grou nd thathe w as an o rp h a n . I n C r a w f or d v. W a s hi ngt on, 541 U . S . 36, 124 S . C t . 1354 ( 2004) , the S u p r e m e C o u r t s a id th a t “th e ru le o f f o r f e itu r e b y w r o n g d o in g ( w h ic h w e a c c e p t) e xt i ngui s he s c onf

r ont a t i on c l a i m s on e s s e nt i a l l y e qui t abl e gr ounds . ” I d. a t62, 124 S . C t . a t1370. I tr e i t e r a t e d tha tpoi nti n D a vi s v. W a s hi ngt on, 547 U . S . ___, 126 S . C t . 2266 ( 2006) , e xpl a i ni ng tha t“ one w ho obt a i ns the a bs e nc e of a w i tne s s by w rong do i ng forf

ei t s the const i tut i on al ri gh tt o con fr on t at i on . ” D avi s, 12 6 S . C t . at 22 80 . T he C ou rtpo i nt ed ou ti n D avi s thatthe F eder al R ul es of E vi dence codi fy the f or f e i tur e doc tr i ne f

orf e de r a l tr i a l s . S e e F e d. R . E vi d. 804( b) ( 6) ( “ A s t a t e m e nt16

offe re d agai nsta par ty thathas e ng aged or acqui es ce d i n w rong do i ng thatw as in te n d e d to , a n d d id , p r o c u r e th e u n a v a ilab ility o f th e d e c la r a n t a s a w itn e s s .” ) . T he r e i s no m or e thor ough w a y t o obt a i n the a bs e nc e of a w i tne s s tha n by m ur de r i ng he r , a nd no m or e de s e r vi ng c i r c um s t a nc e f orappl i c a t i on of

the rul e of forf ei ture by w rong do i ng . In U ni t ed S t at es v. T hevi s, 66 5 F . 2d 61 6 (11 th C i r. 19 82 ), supers eded by rul e, F ed. R . E vi d. 80 4(b)(6), as re cogn i ze d i n U ni t ed S t at es v . Z lato g u r, 2 7 1 F .3 d 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 2 8 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ), w e r ejec ted a d ef en d an t’ s co n t en t i o n th atth e ad m i ssi o n ag ai n sth i m o f th e g ran d j u ry t est i m o n y o f a w i tn ess h e h a d m u r d e r e d v io la te d th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e . I d . a t 6 3 0

– 3 1 . T h e T h e v is c a s e a r os e be f

or e F e de r a l R ul e of

E vi de nc e 804( b) ( 6) w a s a dopt e d, a nd our o p in io n u s e d th e la n g u a g e o f w a iv e rin s te a d o f

f o r f e itu r e to e x p la in th e h o ld in g . N on ethel es s, w hatw e s ai d there appl i es w i th ful l forc e her e: [ W ] he n c onf

r ont a t i on be c om e s i m pos s i bl e due t o the a c t i ons of the ve ry pe r s on w ho w oul d a s s e r tthe r i ght , l ogi c di c t a t e s tha tthe r i ght ha s be e n w a i ve d. T he l a w s i m pl y c a nnotc ount e na nc e a de f e nda nt d e r i v i n g b e n e f

i t s f r o m m u r d e r i n g th e c h i e f wi tn e s s a g a i n s th i m. To perm i tsuch subv er si on of a c ri m i nal prosec ut i on “ w ou l d b e c on tra ry t o publ i c pol i c y , c om m on s e ns e , a nd the unde r l y i ng purpos e of the confront at i on cl ause , ” a nd m ake am ockeryof the sy st em of j ust i ce th a t th e r ig h t w a s d e s ig n e d to p r o te c t. I d. a t630 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W e r e i t e r a t e d tha thol di ng i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R ouc o, 7 6 5 F .2 d 9 8 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) , e x p la in in g : “A d e f e n d a n t m a y w a iv e h is r ig h t to confronta w i tness . In thi s c as e, R ou co w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o cross -e xam i ne B eni t ezIn Thevis we he ld that for purpose s of the waiver or f orfe iture doctrinethe standard of 1 proof f or establishingthat the def endant had murdere d the victim is clear a nd convincing evidenc e. Thevis, 665 F.2d at 631. We havesince re cognized that part of Thevis was superse ded by

Fe d. R. Evid. 804(b)(6) so that the standard is now proof by a prepondera

nce of th e e v i d en ce . Zl at o gur, 2 7 1 F. 3 d at1 0 2 8 ; s ee al s o Dav i s , 1 2 6 S . C t . at2 2 8 0 (n o tt ak i n g a position on the evidentiary standard but notingthat federal c ourts apply a prepondera

nce of the evidenc e standa

rd, and thetendenc y

in state courts is to do the same) . In this case, whether the f acts used to attribute the witness’ absence to the de fenda nt’s wron g do ingmus t beprov e n b y c le ar a nd c onvin c inge vide nc eor

on ly a prepo nd e ra

nc eis ir re le va nt. As wehaveno te d, by thetim ethehe ars ay

wa s admitte d in

thepenalty

stag eof thi s trial, it had been established beyond a re asonabledoubt that Hodg es wa s responsible for the decla rant be ing a

bsent, bec ause hehad been convicted of murderingher. 17 by ki l l i ng hi m . T he S i xth A m e ndm e ntdoe s nots t a nd a s a s hi e l d t o pr ot e c tthe a c c us e d f r om hi s ow n m i s c onduc torc hi c a ne ry . ” I d. a t995 ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons a nd m arks om i tt ed). 1 T he S upr e m e C our t ’ s s t a t e m e nt s i n D a vi s a nd C r a w f or d a boutf

or f e i tur e by w r ongdoi ng a nd ourhol di ngs i n T he vi s a nd R ouc o c om pe l the c onc l us i on tha tthe F l or i da S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng H odge s r e l i e f on hi s C onf

r ont a t i on C la u s e c la im is n o t a d e c is io n th a t w a s “c o n tr a ry to , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n a b le ap p l i c a t i o n o f

, c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d Fe d e r a l l a w , a s d e t e r mi n e d b y th e Su p r e me C o u r t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . III. T h e o th e ris s u e o n w h ic h th e c e r tif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility w a s g r a n te d is H od ges’ cont ent i on thathi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh tt o b e pre se ntatal l the cr i t i ca l s t a ge s of hi s tr i a l w a s vi ol a t e d be c a us e he w a s a bs e ntf r om the c our tr oom a tthe18

e n d o f th e ju ry p h a s e o f

th e s e n te n c e s ta g e . T he fa ct s a re these . H od ges w as pres entdu ri ng al m ostal l of the se nt ence st age of the tri al . H e w as pres entfr om the begi nn i ng , du ri ng the ent i re pres ent at i on of the t es t i m on y of f i ve w i tness es (three agai nstand t w o for hi m ), du ri ng al l of the ar gu m ent s, du ri ng the court ’ s i nstruct i on s t o the j ury, and w hen the j ury l ef

tt o b egi n d el i bera t i ng at11 : 50 a. m . T he courtre ce ss ed and H od ges w a s r e turne d t o hi s hol di ng c e l l . A t12: 05 p. m . the c our tc a m e ba c k i nt o s e s s i on a n d th e ju d g e a n n o u n c e d o n th e r e c o r d th a t H o d g e s , w h o h a d b e e n in h is c e ll w h ile the j ury w as del i bera t i ng , w as no ti n the courtroom because of am edi ca l e m e r g e n c y . H e h a d in

ju r e d h im s e lf

w h ile a tte m p tin g to c o m m it s u ic id e . A tabou tthe sa m e t i m e thatH od ges w as try i ng t o h ang h i m se l f, the j ury had s e ntthe j udge a w r i tt e n r e que s tf ora l i s tof

the m i t i ga t i ng a nd a ggr a va t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s t o us e i n i t s de l i be r a t i ons . T he r e que s ts a i d: “ W e ne e d the l i s tof the t en cond i t i on s of m i t i gat i ng and agg ra vat i ng ci rc um st ance s i n the j ury r oo m . ” A ft erdi sc ussi ng the re qu es tw i th the att orneys , the j ud ge deci ded t o b ri ng the j ury b a c k in to th e c o u r tr o o m a n d r e p e a t h is a g g r a v a tin g a n d m itig a tin g in s tru c tio n s . B ef ore the j ury w as brou gh tback, H od ges’ coun se l m ov ed for a cont i nu ance of the se nt ence proceedi ng un t i l H od ges c ou l d b e pre se nt . In r e s pons e , a nd a f

t e rthe pa r a m e di c s ha d r e m ove d H odge s f r om the c our thous e a nd19

tran sp o rt ed h i m t o th e h o sp i t al , th e j u d g e st at ed th at : “ F o r h eal th reaso n s i t ’ s phy s i c a l l y i m pos s i bl e f

orthe de f

e nda ntt o be i n the c our tr oom dur i ng the r e m a i nde rof

the s e pr oc e e di ngs . H ow e ve r , the C our tde t e r m i ne s tha tthe y m us tgo on . A nd thatw e w i l l proceed w i tho uthi s pre se nce i n the courtroom . ” T he j ury w as brou gh tback i nt o the courtroom . Inst ea d o f provi di ng the j ury w i th a w ri tt en l i stof st atut ory a gg ra vat i ng and m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s, as they ha d r e que s t e d, the j udge r e - i ns truc t e d the j ury on the onl y tw o a ggr a va t i ng ci rc um st ance s thathad any supp orti n the evi dence, w hi ch w er e the tw o thathad b e e n in c lu d e d in h is o r ig in a l in s tru c tio n s . T h e ju d g e a ls o in s tru c te d th e ju ry th a t if i tfoun d ei ther a gg ra vat i ng ci rc um st ance t o b e pre se nt , i tshou l d d et erm i ne w hether m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s e x is te d a n d o u tw e ig h e d th e a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . T he m i t i ga t i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s , the j ur y w a s t ol d, i nc l ude d “ a ny a s pe c tof the de f e nda nt ’ s c ha r a c t e rorr e c or d a nd a ny othe rc i r c um s t a nc e of the of f e ns e . ” I n a si de bar af

t erthe i nstruct i on s, defe nse c ou nsel sa i d, “ T hati s f i ne, Judg e. ” T he j ury th e n r e tir e d to r e s u m e d e lib e r a tio n s a t 1 2 :3 0 p .m . S om e t i m e be f

or e 1: 05 p. m . the c our tl e a rne d tha tthe j ury ha d r e a c he d a verdi ct . T he j ud ge w entback on the re cord and d i sc usse d w i th the att orneys w hat he s houl d s a y t o the j ury a boutH odge s ’ a bs e nc e . T he a tt or ne y s a gr e e d tha tthe courtcoul d i nform the j ury thatH od ges w as abse ntbecause of am edi ca l20

e m e r ge nc y . T he j ury w a s br oughti nt o the c our tr oom . A f t e rthe j ur y ha nde d the verdi ctt o the bai l i ff

bu tbefore i tw as re ad, the j ud ge i nform ed the j ury thatH od ges h ad a m ed ical em er g en cy an d w as n o t ab le to b e p re se n t at th at ti m e. T h e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t, r e c o m m e n d in g a s e n te n c e o f d e a th , w a s th e n r e a d a n d th e ju ry w a s p o lle d . T h e s e n te n c e h e a r in g b e f o r e th e ju d g e w a s n o t h e ld u n til f o u rw e e k s la te r . B y the n H odge s ha d r e c ove r e d f r om hi s i nj ur i e s . H e ha d a l s o be e n e xa m i ne d by tw o m e nt a l he a l th e xpe r t s w ho c onc l ude d tha tw hi l e H odge s w a s s t i l l a ngry a nd f ru s tr a te d e n o u g h th a t h e m ig h t a g a in a tte m p t to c o m m it s u ic id e , h e w a s m e n ta lly c om pe t e ntt o be s e nt e nc e d. H odge s w a s pr e s e ntdur i ng a l l of the j udge pha s e of th e s e n te n c e p r o c e e d in g . U n d e rF lo r id a la w , th e ju d g e a n d n o t th e ju ry a c tu a lly i m po se s the se nt ence i n a capi t al ca se . S ee F l a. S t at . § 9 21 . 14 1(2)–(3). T he F l or i da S upr e m e C our tr e j e c t e d H odge s ’ c l a i m tha tby c onduc t i ng the l as tpartof the j ury phase of the se nt ence proceedi ng i n h i s absence the tri al court had v i ol at ed hi s S i xth and F ou rt ee nth A m endm entri gh tt o b e pre se ntatal l cr i t i ca l s t a ge s of the tr i a l . H odge s I , 595 S o. 2d a t932–33. I the l d both tha tthe pa r tof the p ro ceed i n g H o d g es m i ssed w as n o t“ a cru ci al p o rt i o n o f th e tri al w h ere H o d g es’ a bs e nc e w oul d ha ve c a us e d hi m undue pr e j udi c e , ” a nd tha t“ the tr i a l c our tdi d not e rrin h o ld in g th a t H o d g e s v o lu n ta r ily a b s e n te d h im s e lf .” I d . a t 9 3 3 . T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed thi s c l ai m af t erconcl ud i ng thatthe st at e c ou rtHodg es argues that the state trial court never actually found that his attempted suicide 2 was voluntary . Whil e the trial court did not expl icitly make a voluntariness finding , we inter pret theF lorida

Sup remeCourt ’sstate ment a bo ut t hetrial c ourt ’s“ ho lding

that H odg e s v olu

nta ri ly a bs e nte d h ims e lf

,”Ho dg e s I , 5 95 So. 2d

at 93 3, a s e ith e r a

findingthat th etrial c ourt imp lic itly found that Hodg es’ action was voluntary, cf. H offman v. State, 474 So. 2d 1178, 1181 (F la. 1985) (“ We have he ld that a trial judg e nee d not rec ite a findingof voluntariness if his having made suc h a findingis apparent from the re cord.” ), or a s a findingby the Florida Supreme Court itself that the ac tion was voluntary . I f weread the Florida Supreme Court’s statement as interpretingthe trial cour t’s state mentsa s im

pli c itly findingHo dg e s’ a c tio ns werevo luntary, th at is an entire ly a pp ropriate approach for

an appe llate cour

t to take. See United States v. $242,484.00, 389 F .3d 1149, 1154 (11th Cir. 2004) (notingthat trial court orders ought to be interpreted in the most favora ble light and to include a

ny implied factual findings ne cessa ry to support the judgment). I f weread the Florida Supreme Court’s statement as its own finding that Hodg es ac ted voluntarily , that appellatecourt factfindingis itself entitled to deference . See Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 12 73 (1 1th

Cir . 2 00 3) (n otingthat in fe deral ha

be a s p ro c e e ding s th efac tf inding s o f s tate appellatecourts are due thesame de ferenceas those of statetrial courts); B ui v. Haley, 321 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2003) (same ); Hubbard v. Haley, 317 F.3d 1245, 1252 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (same) . Reg ardle ss of whether weconsider thefindingof voluntariness to haveorig inated in the trial c ourt or in t heF lorida

Sup remeCou

rt , it is p re sume d c or

re c t, a nd Ho dg e s h a s n ot c arrie d h is 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) burden of rebuttingthat presumption by clea r and c onvincingevidenc e. No r h a s h esh own th at th ede c isi on wa s b a se d o n a

n unre a so na

blede terminatio n o f t

hefac ts within the meaningof § 2254(d) (2). 21 h o ld in g th a t H o d g e s c o u ld a n d d id w a iv e h is r ig h t to b e p r e s e n t b y v ir tu e o f h is ow n de l i be r a t e c onduc tw a s notc ontr a ry t o ora n unr e a s ona bl e appl i c a t i on of a ny S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t. S e e H o d g e s I V , 2 0 0 7 W L 6 0 4 9 8 2 , a t * 1 2 . W e a g r e e . H o d g es h as n o tp o i n t ed t o an y S u p rem e C o u rtd eci si o n h o l d i n g th ato n e w h o se o w n v o lu n ta ry c o n d u c t h a s c a u s e d h im to b e a b s e n t f r o m tr ia l m a y s u c c e s s f

u lly c l a i m th a tth e tr i a l ma y n o tc o n t i n u e w i th o u th i m. H e c i t e s o n l y tw o Su p r e me 2 C our tde c i s i ons i n s uppor tof thi s c l a i m . O ne i s D r ope v. M i s s our i , 420 U . S . 162,22

95 S . C t . 89 6 (19 75 ), w here the C ou rtexpres sl y dec l i ned t o d ec i de the i ss ue. Id. at 182, 95 S . C t . a t909. T he othe ri s I l l i noi s v. A l l e n, 397 U . S . 337, 90 S . C t . 1057 ( 1970) , w hi c h uphe l d the r e m ova l of a de f e nda ntf r om the c our tr oom f

ordi s rupt i ve behavi or. Id. at34 7, 90 S . C t . at10 62 –6 3. N ei ther of tho se deci si on s c on st i tut es

“ c l e a r l y e s t a bl 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 tof the U ni t ed S t at es , ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1), thati ti s uncon st i tut i on al t o con t i nu e atri al i n the abse nce of a def

endantw ho ca nn otbe pres entbecause of s el f- i nfl i ct ed in ju r ie s . I n M oor e v. C a m pbe l l , 344 F . 3d 1313 ( 11th C i r . 2003) , appl y i ng § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) , w e d e n ie d h a b e a s r e lie f w h e r e a s ta te c o u r t h a d d e c id e d th a t a defe nd antw ho i nd uced hi s ow n i ncom pet ence by m ea ns of a hun ger s tri ke had f or f e i t e d hi s r i ghtnott o be tr i e d w hi l e i nc om pe t e nt . I d. a t1321–24. I n r e a c hi ng th a t h o ld in g w e c ite d n o t o n ly th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s A lle n d e c is io n , b u t a ls o its deci si on i n T ay l or v. U ni t ed S t at es , 41 4 U . S . 17 , 20 , 94 S . C t . 19 4, 19 6 (19 73 ), w hi ch af fi rm ed a c on vi ct i on ob t ai ned i n the defendant ’ s absence af t erhe had absc on ded from the re m ai nd erof hi s tri al . M oo re , 34 4 F . 3d at13 22 . W e a l so ci t ed f a vor abl y i n M oor e tw o de c i s i ons f r om othe rc our t s hol di ng tha ta de f e nda nt w ho se abse nce r es ul t s f rom a s ui ci de att em pthas w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o b e pre se ntat the tri al . Id. (c i t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. C ri t es , 17 6 F . 3d 10 96 , 10 97 –9 8 (8t h C i r.23

19 99 ); S t at e v. R i ce , 75 7 P . 2d 88 9, 90 9– 10 (W as h. 19 88 ), re ce ded from on other g r o u n d s b y S ta te v . G e n try , 8 8 8 P .2 d 1 1 0 5 ( W a s h . 1 9 9 5 ) ) . In l i gh tof al l of these deci si on s, and i n the abse nce of any Su prem e C ou rt deci si on t o the cont ra ry , w e hol d thatthe st at e c ou rtdeci si on thatH od ges w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o be pr e s e ntdur i ng the f i na l pa r tof

the j ury pha s e of

the s e nt e nc e s t a ge o f h is tr ia l is n o t “c o n tr a ry to , [ n o r ] . . . a n u n r e a s o n a b le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly es t abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es . ” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) . W e a l s o r e a c h a n a l t e rna t i ve hol di ng. E ve n i f w e w e r e c onvi nc e d tha tthe w a iv e rh o ld in g w a s c o n tr a ry to o ra n u n r e a s o n a b le ap p lic a tio n o f c le a r ly e s t a bl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w w i thi n the m e a ni ng of § 2254( d) ( 1) , w e w oul d s t i l l de ny r e l i e f be c a us e the F l or i da S upr e m e C our t ’ s a ddi t i ona l hol di ng tha tthe s m a l l pa r tof th e s e n te n c e p r o c e e d in g s th a t H o d g e s m is s e d w a s n o t a c r itic a l p a r t o f th e tr ia l is d u e d e f e r e n c e u n d e r§ 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . W h ile a c r im in a l d e f

e n d a n t h a s a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to b e p r e s e n t a t tr ia l, th a t r ig h t is n o t u n lim ite d in its s c o p e . A d e f e n d a n t is o n ly “g u a r a n te e d th e r ig h t to b e p r e s e n t a t a n y s ta g e o f th e c r im in a l p r o c e e d in g th a t is c r itic a l to its o u tc o m e if hi s pr e s e nc e w oul d c ontr i but e t o the f a i rne s s of

the pr oc e dur e . ” K e ntuc ky v. S t i ncer , 48 2 U . S . 73 0, 74 5, 10 7 S . C t . 26 58 , 26 67 (198 7). In S t i ncer , the C ou rt24

he l d tha tthe de f

e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o be pr e s e ntw a s notvi ol a t e d by hi s e xc l us i on f r om a h eari n g t o d et erm i n e th e co m p et en cy o f tw o ch i l d ren w h o l at er t est i fi ed ag ai n st hi m . Id. In re ac hi ng thatho l di ng , the S up re m e C ou rtno t ed thatthe defendanthad

“ pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e tha thi s r e l a t i ons hi p w i th the c hi l dr e n, orhi s know l e dge of f a c t s r e ga r di ng the i rba c kgr ound, c oul d ha ve a s s i s t e d e i the rhi s c ouns e l orthe j udge i n a s ki ng que s t i ons tha tw oul d ha ve r e s ul t e d i n a m or e a s s ur e d de t e r m i na t i on of c om pe t e nc y . ” I d. a t747, 107 S . C t . a t2668. S i m i l a r l y , H odge s ha s nots how n tha thi s pr e s e nc e dur i ng the s m a l l pa r tof the j ury phase of the se nt ence st age thathe m i ss ed w ou l d h ave r es ul t ed i n “ a m ore as sure d” se nt ence . H od ges w as pres entthrou gh ou tthe ent i re gu i l tst age of the tri al and al l of the j ud ge ph as e of the se nt ence st age. H e w as al so pres entatthe j ury pha s e of the s e nt e nc e s t a ge dur i ng a l l of the t e s t i m ony a nd pr e s e nt a t i on of the e v id e n c e , d u r in g th e o p e n in g a n d c lo s in g a r g u m e n ts , a n d w h e n th e ju d g e o r ig in a lly i nstruct ed the j ury. T he on l y partH od ges m i ss ed w as the bri ef di sc ussi on betw ee n the att orneys and t he j ud ge abou tho w t o res po nd t o the j ury’ s r equestfor aw ri tt en l i stof the aggravat i ng and m i t i gat i ng ci rc um st ance s, the j ud ge’ s bri ef supp l em ent al i ns truc t i ons t o the j ury ( a boutw hi c h H odge s a nd hi s a tt orne y s ha ve ne ve rf ound a n y f a u lt) , a n d th e r e n d itio n o f th e ju ry ’s a d v is o ry v e r d ic t r e c o m m e n d a tio n . B ey on d h i s unsup po rt ed as se rt i on thathi s absence “ w as no tharm l es s, ” H od ges has25

n o t e x p la in e d h o w th e p r o c e e d in g s h e m is s e d w e r e c r itic a l to th e o u tc o m e o f h is case— h o w h i s p resen ce w o u l d h av e en h an ced th e fai rn ess o f th o se p ro ceed i n g s. T he F l or i da S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on tha tthe pa r tof the s e nt e nc e s t a ge before the j ury thatH od ges m i ss ed w as no ta c ri t i ca l st age of the tri al and sent ence pr oc e e di ngs i s not“ c ontr a ry t o, [ nordoe s i t ] i nvol ve [ ] a n unr e a s ona bl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l y e s t a bl 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 tof the U ni t e d S t a t e s . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) ( 1) . W e a f f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of r e lie f o n th e r ig h t to p r e s e n c e c la im , b o th b e c a u s e H o d g e s v o lu n ta r ily w a iv e d h is ri gh tt o b e pre se ntand al so because the partof the se nt ence st age thathe m i ss ed w a s n o t a c r itic a l s ta g e o f th e tr ia l a n d s e n te n c e p r o c e e d in g s .

I V. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f th e p e titio n f

o ra w r it o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s is A F F I R M E D .