T h e H o n o rab le R
. L eo n Jo rda n , S en ior U n it ed S tat es D istri ct J u d g e fo r t h e E astern * D i s t r i ctof Tennes s ee, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.

NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON

Fi l e N ame: 07a0812n. 06 Fi l ed: N ovember 21, 2007 N o. 06- 1560 UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT AN THO NY W EST, ) ) P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, ) ) v . ) ) K U R T J O N E S , ) ) R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e . ) ON APPEAL FROM T HE U NI TED S T AT E S DI S T R I C T CO UR T F OR T HE E AS T E RN DI S T RI CT OF M I CH I GAN

B efor e: B OGG S and KENN ED Y , C irc u it Ju d g e s; J ORDAN , D i s t r i ctJ udge. *

LE ON J ORDAN , D istri ct Ju d g e. P eti ti o n er A n tho n yW estappea l s the di s tr i ct
cour t ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254 pet i t i on fora w r i t of habea s corpus . W es t and hi s codefe ndant , H er m an C o lem an , w er e t r i ed i n W ayne C ount y , M i chi gan w i t hout a j ur yon char ges of ar s on of a dw el l i ng hous e and f i r s t degr ee f

el onym ur der
. N ei t her W es tnor C o lem a n tes tifie d a t trial; h o w e v e r, th e p ro s e c u ti o n r e a d in to th e re c o rd tw o sta tem e n ts C olem an h ad m ade t o t he p oli ce, w hich t end ed to pl ace responsi bil i t yfor t he cri m e on W est and mi ni m i ze Col eman’ s cul pabi l i t y . O n A ugus t 11, 1999, t he t r i al cour t acqui t t ed W es tand C o le m a n o f

a rs o n b u t f

o u n d b o th g u ilty o f

s e c o n d -d e g re e m u rd e r.2 O n D ece m ber7, 2001, t he st ate cour t of appe al s on di r ectappea l aff i r m ed W es t ’ s convi ct i on, and W es tm ade a ppl i cat i on t o t he M i chi gan Supr eme C our t . In li eu of gr ant i ng t he appl i cat i on, t he M i chi gan S upr eme C our t on Sept ember 10, 2003, vaca t ed t he j udgm entof t he cour t of appea l s and r emanded t he ca s e forcons i der at i on of w het hert he t r i al
c o u rt’s a p p a re n t re lian c e o n C o lem a n ’s s tate m e n ts w a s h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. O n r emand, t he cour tof appea l s agai n aff i r m ed W es t ’ s convi ct i on, but one j udge di s s ent ed. T he M i chi gan Supr eme C our tdeni ed W es t ’ s appl i cat i on for l eave t o appea l , concl udi ng t hat
a n ye rro r b yth e trial c o u rt in c o n sid e rin g th e o u t-o f -c o u rt sta tem e n t o f

o n e d e f e n d a n t in d e ter m in in g th e g u ilto f th e o th e r w a s h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. W e st f iled h is p e titio n f o r h a b e a s c o rp u s re lie f

o n J u ly 1 9 , 2 0 0 4
. W e have under t aken a de novo r evi ew of the r ecor d , the appl i cabl e l aw , and the p ar tie s ’ b ri e fs. W e c o n cu r w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s co n clus ion that the s tat e c o u rt ’s det er m i nat i on of har m l es s er r ordi d not r es ul t i n a dec i s i on t hatw as cont r ar yt o or an
unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of S upr eme C our t pr ece dent
. 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254( d)
. T he i s s uance of a f ul l w r i t t en opi ni on by t hi s cour t w oul d t her efor e s er ve no us eful purpos e. W e not e t hat the s tand ard em p loy ed b ythe d istri ct co u rt , the “ su b stan ti al a n d injuriou s ef fe ct” stan d ard
s etfor t h i n B r echt

v. A br aham s on , 507 U
. S. 619, 637, 113 S. C t . 1710, 123 L
. E d. 2d. 353 ( 1993) , w as r ece nt l y aff i r m ed by t he Supr eme C our t i n Fr y v. P l i l er , - - - - U
. S. - - - - , 12 7 S. C t . 2321, 2328, 168 L
. E d. 2d 16 ( 2007)
. A ccor di ngl y , for t he r eas ons s t at ed i n t he di s t r i ct3

cour t ’ s opi ni on, w e AF F I RM t he deni al of W es t ’ s habea s corpus pet i t i on.