H on. L oui s H
. Pol l ak, Seni or J udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * C our tfort he East ern D i s t ri ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 09- 2562

A M BR O SE A
. H A RR I S, A ppel l ant

v.

* M IC H E L L E R . R IC C I, A d m in istra to r, N e w Je rse yS tate Pr i s on; ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE STATE OF N EW J ERSEY

* (S u b s titu te d 3 /3 1 /1 0 p u rs u a n t to R u le 4 3 (c ), F e d . R . A p p . P .)
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctC our tof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. N o. 3- 05- cv- 04858) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on

A r gued A pr i l 15, 2010 B efore: S L O V ITE R and H A R D IM A N , C i rcui tJudg es,

and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: J une 3, 2010)

____ C ar l J
. H erm an 443 N or t hfi el d A venue 2 Fl oor nd W es tO r ange, N
. J
. 070522 J ames K
. Sm i t h, J r . ( A r gued) O ffi ce of Publ i c D efe nder A ppel l at e Sect i on N ew ark, N
. J
. 07101 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant D ani el I
. B or ns t ei n ( A r gued) O ffi ce of A t t or neyG ener al of N ew J er s ey D i vi s i on of C r i m i nal J us t i ce T r ent on, N
. J
. 08625 A t t or neyforA ppel l ee

______

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

______ S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge
. B ef o re a n d d u ri n g h is st ate c o u rttr ial fo r ca p it al m u rde r, A m b rose H arris w as th e su b ject of n u m ero u s inf

lam m atory ar t i cl es i n t w o l ocal new s paper s , the Tre nt oni an and the Tre nt on Ti m es . U l t i m at el y , t he courtpr es um ed pr ej udi ci al pr etr i al publ i ci t y . H arr i s m oved fora cha nge of ve nue or , i n t he a lte rn a tiv e , f

o r a ju ry f

ro m a n o th e r c o u n ty (a “ f o re ig n ju ry” ). T he tr i al cour tadopt ed the al t ernat i ve pr opos al
. H arr i s , w ho w as convi ct ed and uns ucce s s ful i n hi s s t at e courtappea l , fi l ed a p eti ti o n fo r a w ri t of

h ab ea s co rpu s in the fe d era l distri ct co u rt cl ai m i ng t hatt he deni al of hi s m ot i on t o t r ans fervenue de pr i ved hi m of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al
. H arr i s appea l s the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of h i s pet i t i on for a w ri tof h abeas co rpus. I. Backg r ound H arr i s w as i ndi ct ed i n J une 1994 forhavi ng m ur der edT h e f ac ts of that h eino u s m u rde r an d it s inv esti g ati o n w ere 1 s e t o u t in s o m e d e ta il b y th e N e w J e rs e y S u p re m e C o u rt
. S e e S ta te v . H a rr is , 7 1 6 A .2 d 4 5 8 , 4 6 3 -6 6 (N .J. 1 9 9 8 ). I t is n o t n e c e ss a ryto re c ite tho se f

a c ts he re in o rd e r to re so lv e th e iss u e b e f o re th is c o u rt. “The new s paperr an manyfr ont
- page, i nvect i ve- fi l l ed 2 headl i nes : ‘ E x- I nm at e: Suspe cti s a Loudm outhed Punk, ’ ‘ H uggi ns S u sp ec t “W o u ld K il l Y o u in a H ea rtb ea t, ”’ ‘P rof il e o f a M o n ster: T he M an W ho K i l l ed K r i s t i n H uggi ns C om m i t ted H i s Fi r s tR ape as a Teenage r , ’ ‘ F rom B oyt o B eas t , ’ ‘ H uggi ns Sl ay erT err or i zes Pr i s on, ’ ‘ H e’ s Sat an i n D i s gui s e. ’ O t hernew s acc ount s di s cus s ed [H arr i s ’ s ] pr i orcr i m inal rec o r d as w el l as ot hercr i m es he w as s us pect ed of com m i t t i ng. A n edi t or i al i s tpr edi ct ed thatdeath by l ethal i nj ect i on w oul d r i d s oci etyof ‘ one of the bi gges tpi ece s of hum an t r as h evert o bl i ghtT r ent on s t r eet s . ’ ” S ta te v . H a rr is , 716 A
. 2 d 4 5 8 , 4 6 9 -70 (N
. J. 1 9 9 8 ). 3 K r i s t i n H uggi ns . D ue t o t he pervas i ve publ i ci t ys urr oundi ng the 1 m u rd e r a n d h is a rre st, H a rris m o v e d th e trial c o u rt to tra n sf e r h is cas e fr om M er cerC ount y , N ew J er s ey , w her e the cr i m e w as comm i t t ed, t o a di ffe r entvenue or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, forthe i m panel m entof a f

or ei gn j ury . M or e s peci fi cal l y , H arr i s ar gued t hat“a f ai rt r i al [coul d not ] be had i n M er cerC ount y ” bec aus e of highl yprej ud i ci al pre- t ri al m edia coverage b ytw o n ew spapers – t he Tre nt oni an and the Tre nt on Ti m es – w hi ch had a combi ned ci r cul at i on i n M er cerC ount yof about130, 000. A pp at59. T he tr i al cour tagr eed w i t h H arr i s thatthe “l i kel i hood” t hatt he “t ai nt ” fr om t hes e s our ces w oul d “perm eat [e] the tr i al [coul d not ] be i gnor ed. ” A pp at60. T he tr i al cour tt ook par t i cul arnot e thatt he “i nt ens i t yof [the] new s papercover age [w as ] compl i cat ed byt he venge ance - s eeki ng crus ade of the Tre nt oni an ” w hi ch gene r at ed a “ s t r eam of i nvect i ve” thatw as “cons t antand pr ol onged and s ens at i onal i zed, ” A pp at60, and w hi ch “pa nder [ed] t o i t s r eade r s ’ w or s ti ns t i nct s , ” A pp at59. 2 T h ere fo re, al tho u g h the tri al co u rtd en ied H arris’ s m o ti o n fo r a c h a n g e o f

v e n u e , i tg r a n t e d h i s m o t i o n t o i m p a n e l a f o r e i g n j u r y. H arr i s fi l ed an i nt er l ocut oryappea l t o chal l enge the tr i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o i m panel a j uryfr om H unt er don C ount y , andA c c o rd in g to th e N e w Je rse yS u p re m e C o u rt: 3 “D r amat i cal l ypr ej udi ci al head li nes w er e att endantt o the gui l t
- phas e del i ber at i ons . T he Tre nt oni an headl i nes r ead, ‘ O ne J u ro r S ta lls V e rd ic t,’ a n d ‘B a ttlin g H a rr is J u ry D ra w s P u b lic F ir e .’ 4 th e S tate c ro ss -a p p e a led th e trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n to im p a n e l a f o re ig n ju ry in th e f

ir s t in s ta n c e , a rg u in g th a t it w a s u n n e c e s s a ry. T he Super i orC our tof N ew J er s ey , A ppel l at e D i vi s i on, hel d t hat “the tr i al cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n concl udi ng” that “pr ej udi ce [ i n M er cerC ount y ] m aybe pr es um ed due t o pr etr i al pu bli ci t y , ” and affirm ed the tri al cou rt ’s decis i on “t hat th[e] case s houl d be tr i ed bef

or e a f or ei gn j ury . ” S ta te v . H a rr is , 660 A
. 2d 5 3 9 , 5 4 1 -42 (N
. J. S u p er. C t. A p p . D iv. 19 9 5 ) (H arris I ). H o w ev er, th e A p p ell ate D ivisi o n also h eld th at th e tri al co u rt s houl d have c ons i der ed w hetherthe r aci al demogra phi cs of the co u n tyfro m w h ich it w o u ld d raw the n ew juryp o o l w ere c o m p a ra b le to th e ra c ial d e m o g ra p h ics o f th e c o m m u n ityin w hi ch the cr i m e w as comm i t t ed, and furt herfound thatthe tr i al cour thad abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n s el ect i ng H unt er don C ount yas t he s our ce of

t he j ur ypool beca us e the r aci al demogra phi cs of H unt er don C ount ydi ffe r ed mar kedl yfr om thos e of M er cer C o u n ty. Id . a t 5 4 4 -4 5 . It th e n re m a n d e d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . Id
. at545. O n r emand, t he tr i al j udge dec i ded t o i m panel j ur or s fr om B u r l i n g t o n C o u n t y, a c o u n t y c o n t i g u o u s t o M e r c e rC o u n t y, w her e the r aci al demogra phi cs gener al l ym at ched thos e of M er cerC ount y , and w her e the combi ned r eade r s hi p of the Tre nt oni an and the T

rent on T i m es w as onl yar ound 22, 000, di vi ded fa i r l yevenl ybetw een the tw o. S e e S ta te v . H a rr is , 716 A
. 2 d 4 5 8 , 4 7 1 -72 (N
. J. 1 9 9 8 ) (H a rris II )
. T he j uryvoi rdi r e w as c o n d u c ted in B u rlin g to n C o u n ty . D u rin g ju ryse lec tio n , H a rris m o v e d th e trial c o u rt to c h a n g e v e n u e f ro m M e rc e r C o u n tyto B ur l i ngt on C ount y . I n s uppor tof thi s m ot i on, H arr i s s ubm i t t ed evi dence t hat , among ot herthi ngs , the Tre nt oni an w as s ol d at sit es n ea r th e M erc er c o u rth o u se. T h e tri al co u rtd en ied H arris’ s m ot i on. I ns t ead, eac h dayof tr i al the j ur or s w er e tr ans por t ed by b u s f ro m th e B u rl in g to n c o u rt h o u s e to th e c o u rt h o u s e in M e rc e r. M eanw hi l e, “the i nfl amm at orypubl i ci t ycont i nued thr oughout th e tr ia l[ ].” S ta te v . H

a rr is , 859 A
. 2d 364, 429 ( N
. J
. 2004) 3A fea tur e s t or y quot ed a Tre nt on r es i dentas expr es s i ng the opi ni on t hat ‘ [m ] os t peopl e fi gur e t he j ury w oul d thi nk, “W e’ l l have l unch on t he county , and w e’ l l s quir t hi m - t hi s aft ernoon. ”’ Si m i l ar publ i ci t ycont i nued dur i ng t he pena l t yphas e. A headl i ne s uch as
‘ A m br os e Ey ed i n ‘ 67 Sl ay . ’ A n edi t or i al r ecomm ended de ath for H arr i s . T he day aft er t he j ury r eturned i t s gui l tver di ct , a fr ont
- page p h o to g ra p h o f H a rris ra n o v e r a c a p tio n w h ich re a d , ‘S o w h y ’s th is ki l l ers m i l i ng? B eca us e he’ s s een j ur orN o. 7 cry i ng, and he thi nks s he’ l l never go for t he dea t h penal t y . ’ ” H a rris II , 716 A
. 2d at472. 5 (H a rris IV ). H arr i s w as convi ct ed and the j uryr ecomm ended thathe b e s e n te n c e d to d e a th
. H a rris II , 716 A
. 2d at463. T he N ew J er s eySupr eme C our taff i r m ed H arr i s ’ s convi ct i on and the ju ry’s re c o m m e n d e d d e a th s e n te n c e . I d. at498. T he N ew J er s ey S u p rem e C o u rth eld, i n p art, that “the selec ti o n o f a jury com po sed of

ou t -of- cou ntyres i den t s, and [t he tr i al cou rt ’s ] gener al ques t i oni ng of the j ur or s dur i ng the tr i al conce r ni ng any ex p o su re to tri al pu b li citysu ff ici en tl yen su red that d ef en d an t’ s t r i al w as fr ee of

extr aneous i nfl uence s . ” Id
. at 46 3
. M o re s peci fi cal l y , t he C our tnot ed thati n t he pas ti thad appr oved the u se o f a f o re ig n ju rya s a “ trial m a n a g e m e n t tec h n iq u e [ ] . . . to ens ur e thata def

endant ’ s r i ghtt o an i m par t i al j uryi s not compromi s ed, ” i d. at470, and i tobs erved that“a c hange of venue ha s t he s ame benefi t s and dr aw backs as the i m panel l i ng of a for ei gn j ur ys i nce both m ethods ut i l i ze j ur or s fr om comm uni t i es w her e publ i ci t ym aybe l es s i nt ens e, ” id
. ( quot i ng S ta t e v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 5 9 A .2 d 6 4 1 , 6 5 6 n .1 3 (N .J . 1 9 8 3 ))
. A l t hough t he H

a rris II C o u rt a f f irm e d H a rris’ s c o n v ictio n , it s t at ed that“[w ] hen .
. . a ca pi t al cas e i s acc om pani ed bya s t r eam of publ i c i nvect i ve s uch as s urr ounded thi s cas e, i tocca s i ons us t o r econs i derourpr ece dent , ” i d. , an d h eld th at “[ i] n fu ture capi t al cas es a courts houl d change the venue of a c api t al tr i al w hen ther e i s a r eal i s t i c l i kel i hood t hatpr es um pt i vel ypr ej udi ci al publ i ci t yw i l l cont i nue dur i ng the conduc tof a tr i al , ” id . a t 4 7 1
. L a ter , the N e w Je rse yS u p re m e C o u rt u n d e rto o k a se p a ra te “pr opor t i onal i t yr evi ew ” of the r ecomm ended de ath s ent ence and c o n c lu d e d th a t H a rris’ s s e n ten c e w a s n o t d isp ro p o rtio n a te c o m p a re d to o th e r c a s e s . S ta te v . H a rr is , 757 A
. 2d 221, 307T he N ew J erse ySupr eme C our tfound thatbeca us e of 4 s om e of t he PC R “court ’ s s t at ement s , and the bi as , fl i ppancy , and d isd a in th e yp o rtra y [ e d ,]” it w o u ld “ a f f o rd n o w e ig h t to a n y o f its fi ndi ngs orconcl us i ons . ” H a rris IV , 859 A
. 2d at378. 6 (N
. J. 2 0 0 0 ) (H

a rris II I ). H arr i s nextpet i t i oned forpos tconvi ct i on r el i ef, m aki ng “mul t i pl e cl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and as s or t ed otherchal l enges t o t he val i di t yof hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . ” H

a rris IV , 859 A
. 2d at374. H i s pet i t i on w as eventual l yr evi ew ed de novo a nd deni ed bythe N ew J er s ey S u p re m e C o u rt. Id

. at380, 449. 4 T her eaf t er , H arr i s fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as c o rp u s in th e N e w J e rs e yd is tr ic t c o u rt
. See H ar r is v. C athel , C iv. N o . 0 5 -48 5 8 (A E T ), 2 0 0 9 W L 5 3 9 8 9 8 , at *1 (D
. N
. J. M ar. 4 , 2 0 0 9 ) (H

arris V )
. W hi l e the r es ol ut i on of hi s pet i t i on w as pendi ng, N ew J er s eyr epea l ed the dea t h penal t yand N ew J er s ey G overnorJ on C or zi ne comm ut ed H arr i s ’ s death s ent ence t o l i fe im p ri s o n m e n t w ith o u t th e p o s s ib ility o f p a ro le
. See i d. a t * 2
. H arr i s t her eaf

t erabandone d al l of hi s ar gum ent s bas ed on the i m pos i t i on of the dea t h penal t y , and pr es s ed onl ythe fol l ow i ng cl ai m s t hat“fl ow fr om the Si xth A m endment ’ s guar ant ee of a fai rt r i al ”: ( 1) i n l i ghtof the pr etr i al publ i ci t ys urr oundi ng the c a se , the trial c o u rt’s u se o f a f o re ig n ju ryd e p riv e d h im o f a f a ir t r i al ; ( 2) t he tr i al cour ts houl d have t aken mor e ext ens i ve pr eca ut i ons t o ens ur e thatthe i m panel ed j ur or s w er e noti nfec t ed byt he mi d- t r i al publ i ci t y ; ( 3) the tr i al cour ts houl d have he l d a hear i ng t o expl or e al l egat i ons of cont actbetw een j ur or s and a form erpubl i c def

ender ; ( 4) the tr i al cour ts houl d have a l l ow ed H a rris to c a ll a w itn e ss w h o w o u ld h a v e tes tifie d th a t G lo ria D u n n , w h o w a s H a rris’ s a c c o m p lice in th e m u rd e r o f K ristin H ug gins and w ho w as the st at e’s pri m aryw i t ness againstH arr i s, w a s a v io le n t p e rs o n ; a n d (5 ) h is c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e . I d. at *2 , *7 , *9
. T he D i stri ctC ou rtrej ect ed all of H arr i s’ s ar gu m ents , d e n ied h is p e tit io n f

o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s, a n d d e n ied H a rris a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. Id
. at*10. T hi s cour tgr ant ed H arr i s ’ s pet i t i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y , fi ndi ng thatthe “s ol e cl ai m pr es ent ed [on] appea l [w as ] ‘ adequa t e t o des erveT h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 5 2254( a)
. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1291 and 2 2 5 3 (a). 7 encour agementt o pr ocee d fur t her , ’ ” A pp. at30 ( quot i ng Mi l l erE l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U
. S. 322, 327 ( 2003) ) , and i ns t ruct ed the p a r t i e s t o b r i e f

“ t h e i s s u e o f

wh e t h e rth e Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me C o u rt h e ld c o n tra ryto , o r u n re a so n a b lya p p lied , ‘cle a rly estab li sh ed F ed era l l aw , ’ s ee 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ), in af firm ing the tri al co u rt ’s de cisi o n to im p an el a f o reign jury r athert han tr ans fert he ca s e t o a di ffe r entvenue i n l i ghtof the pr etr i al publ i ci t yt hats ur r ounded the ca s e, ” A pp at30- 31. 5 II. A n a ly sis B e c a u se th is c a se a rise s f ro m a sta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g in w h ich th e m erit s o f H arris’ s so le claim o n ap p ea l w ere adj udi cat ed, t he s t andar ds es t abl i s hed bythe A nt i t err or i s m and E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 (“ A E D P A ” ) a p p ly. See 28 U
. S. C
. § 2241- 2266. H arr i s i s notent i t l ed t o a w r i tof habe as corpus unl es s t he s t at e pr ocee di ngs “( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on t hatw as contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, c l e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d F e d e r a l l a w, a s d e t e r mi n e d b yth e S u p r e me C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ; or( 2) r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof t he evi dence pr es ent ed i n t he St at e courtpr ocee di ng. ” I d. § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 )-(2 ). T h e c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili tyg ra n ted in th is cas e i s l i m i t ed t o t he “c ontr aryt o” pr ong. T her e has been c ons i der abl e j udi ci al comm ent aryon t he re q u ir e m e n ts im p o s e d b yA E D P A . “ A s ta te c o u rt d e c is io n . . . fai l s the ‘ contr aryt o’ pr ong of A E D PA i f the s t at e courtr eac hes a conc l us i on oppos i t e t o the Supr eme C ourt ’ s ow n concl us i on on a ques t i on of l aw ordeci des the ca s e di ffe r ent l yw her e the S u p re m e C o u rt w a s c o n f ro n ted b ya se t o f

m a ter ially i ndi s t i ngui s habl e fa ct s . ” McMu llen v . T e n n is , 562 F. 3d 231, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. “Si m i l ar l y , a s t at e courtrul i ng is co n side red an ‘un rea so n ab le ap p li ca ti o n ’ i f th e state c o u rt8 un reas on ablyapp l i es the co rr ectl egal rule t o the part i cularfact s, unr eas onabl yext ends a l egal pr i nci pl e t o a new cont ext , or unr eas onabl yr efus es t o ext end the pr i nci pl e t o a new cont ext w her e i ts houl d appl y . ” I d. (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he ef fec tof ext ens i ve pr etr i al publ i ci t yhas al s o been the s ubj ectof num er ous deci s i ons bythe court s , i ncl udi ng the S u p rem e C o u rt
. T h is co u rth as n o ted th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s hol di ngs t hat“‘ adver s e pr etr i al publ i ci t ycan c r eat e s uch a p r e s u mp t i o n o f

p r e j u d i c e i n a c o mmu n i t yth a tth e j u r o r s ’ c l a i ms t hatt heycan be i m par t i al s houl d notbe bel i eved. ’ ” F l am erv. D el aw are , 68 F. 3d 736, 754 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( en banc ) ( quot i ng P at t on v. Y

ount , 4 6 7 U
. S
. 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 3 1 (19 8 4 )). Th e S u p r e me Co u r th a s a l s o h e l d th a ti n s o me ci r cumst ance s m i d- t r i al publ i ci t yand court r oom event s can re s u lt in a p re s u m p tio n o f ju ro r p re ju d ic e . See Estes v. Texas , 3 8 1 U
. S
. 5 3 2 , 5 4 2 -43 (19 6 5 ) (j u ryp rejud ice a ssu m ed in p art beca us e tr i al w as conduct ed i n a ci r cus - l i ke atm os pher e cr eat ed b ytele v isio n a n d n e w s m e d ia) ; Sh e p p a rdv . M

a x w e ll , 38 4 U. S. 33 3, 35 5 (196 6) (

j uror pr ej ud i ce presum ed in partbecau se “bedl am re i gned att he court hous e dur i ng the tr i al and new s m en t ook overpr act i cal l yt he ent i r e court r oom , houndi ng m os tof the par t i ci pant s i n t he tr i al , es peci al l ySheppar d. ”)
. Such a p re s u m p tio n a ri s e s , h o w e v e r, o n ly w h e n th e “ p ro c e e d in g s . . . [ar e] ent i r el yl acki ng i n t he s ol emni t yand s obr i etyt o w hi ch a defe ndanti s ent i t l ed i n a s y s t em t hats ubs cr i bes t o anynot i on of fai r nes s and r ej ect s t he ver di ctof a mob. ” Mur phy v. F l or i da , 4 2 1 U
. S
. 7 9 4 , 7 9 9 (19 7 5 ). T h e e f f e c t o f p re trial p u b licityw a s a lso c o n sid e re d in R i deau v. Louis i ana, 373 U
. S. 723 ( 1963) , w her e “the def endant had ‘ confe s s ed’ underpol i ce i nt err ogat i on t o t he murde rof w hi ch he s t ood convi ct ed. ” Mur phy , 421 U
. S. at799 ( des cr i bi ng R i deau ). “A 20 -m i nu t e fi l m of h i s conf essi on w as broadcast t hr ee t i m es bya t el evi s i on s t at i on i n t he comm uni t yw her e the cr i m e and the tr i al t ook pl ace . ” I d. In re v ersing the d ef

en d an t’ s convi ct i on, t he Supr eme C our ti n R i deau “di d notexami ne the voi rdi r e forevi dence of ac tual pr ej udi ce be caus e i tcons i der ed t he tr i al underr evi ew ‘ buta hol l ow form al i t y ’ - the r eal tr i al had occurr ed w hen t ens of thous ands of peopl e, i n a comm uni t yof9 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 , h ad see n an d h ea rd th e d ef en d an t adm ith is gu il t bef o re t he ca m er as . ” I

d. F ro m th is lin e o f

p re c e d e n ts, H a rris a rg u e s th a t as a re su lt of the tr i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng uncont es t ed on appe al thatpr ej udi ci al pr e- t r i al publ i ci t ybyT r ent on- bas ed new s paper s cr eat ed a p re su m p tio n o f

p re ju d ice in M e rc e r C o u n tyju ro rs, “ c lea rly e sta b lish e d f

e d e ra l law , as se t f

o rth b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt, r equi r e[d] t hatt he venue of the tr i al be moved aw ayfr om the so u rc e o f th e p u b licityin o rd e r to p ro tec t p e tit io n e r’s S ix th A m endmentr i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al byan i m par t i al j ury [. ] ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at1. I n otherw or ds , H arr i s ar gues thatthe S u p rem e C o u rtca ses h o ld tha t th e o n lyp o ssible rem ed yfo r a fi ndi ng of pr es um pt i ve pr ej udi ce i n a comm uni t ydue t o pr etr i al publ i ci t yi s a cha nge of ve nue. N o Supr eme C our tdeci s i on dir ect l yso st at es and w e decli ne to vi ew this argum ent as a n a tu ra l ex ten sio n o f

e x istin g p re c e d e n t. H arr i s di s count s the r el evanc e of the j ur or s ’ aff i r m at i ons t hatt heyhad notbeen a w ar e of the publ i ci t y , ei t herpr etr i al or m idtr ial
. H e re fe rs t o the s tat em en ts i n the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n I

r v i n v . Do wd , 3 6 6 U
. S
. 7 1 7 (19 6 1 ), w h ere the C o u rt stat ed that there w as “ [n ]o d o u b t [th at] eac h juro r w as sin ce re w h en h e sa id tha t he w o u ld b e f air an d im p arti al t o p eti ti o n er, b u t psy ch o log ical i m p ac t r eq u ir ing su ch a d ec larati o n b ef o re one’ s fel l ow s i s oft en i t s father
. ” I d. at728. T he C our thel d t hat “[w ] her e s o m any[j ur or s ] s o m anyt i m es , admi t t ed pr ej udi ce, [ th e ir ] s ta te m e n t[ s ] o f

im p a rt ia lity c a n b e g iv e n littl e w e ig h t . . .

. [bec aus e] [a] s one of the j ur or s puti t , ‘ Y ou can’ tfor getw hat y ou hearand s ee. ’ ” I

d. Irv in i s i nappos i t e her e. I n Irv in , ei ght of the tw el ve j ur or s had form ed an opi ni on thatthe def endant w as gui l t ybefor e the tr i al began; s om e w ent“s o faras t o s aythat it w o u ld ta k e e v id e n c e to o v e rc o m e th e irb e lie f ” in h is g u ilt. I

d. It is im p o rt a n t to re c o g n iz e w h a t H a rr is d o e s n o t a rg u e . T o o ur kno w l edg e, H arr i s has nev er ar gu ed thatthere w as so m uch nega t i ve pr etr i al publ i ci t yi n B ur l i ngt on C ount y , the r es i dence of the for ei gn j ur or s , thatpr ej udi ce s houl d be p re su m e d . In d e e d , the trial c o u rt h e ld th a t B u rlin g to n C o u n ty w as n o t so inf

ec ted, an d the N ew Jerse yS u p rem e C o u rt a p p ro v e d th a t h o ld in g . S ee H a rris II , 716 A
. 2d at472 ( “The10 pr i nci pal r i s k of j ur ycont ami nat i on i n t hi s cas e ar os e i n M er cer [ C ]o u n ty an d n o t in th e h o m e c o u n tie s o f th e ju ro rs .” ). Si gni fi cant l y , H arr i s hi m s el f had r eques t ed thatthe tr i al be t r a n s f e r r e d t o B u r l i n g t o n C o u n t y. N o r do es H arris argu e tha t th e tri al co u rtim p an eled juro rs w h o w e re a c tu a lly b ia s e d a s a re s u lt o f th e p re tr ia l p u b lic ity. Such an ar gum entw oul d i n fac tbe di ffi cul tt o s us t ai n i n l i ghtof t he N ew J er s eySupr eme C our t ’ s fi ndi ngs on di r ectappea l that t he tr i al cou rt“t oo k firm st eps t o en sure that none of those hous ehol ds t hatr ece i ved the Tre nt oni an ( t he new s paper c o n tain in g th e m o st in f

lam m a to rym a ter ial) w o u ld b e o n th is j ur y , ” and that“[a ] nyj ur orw ho r egul ar l yr ead the Tre nt oni an w as e ff ec ti v elysu b

ject t o eli m ination fo r ca u se in the ju ry s el ect i on pr oces s . ” I

d. In f ac t, H arris do es n o t argu e tha t th e im p an eled juro rs w e re a c tu a llyb ias e d f

o r a n yre a so n , w h e th e r d u e to e x p o su re to p u b licityb e f

o re o r d u rin g th e trial o r o th e rw ise . In a n ye v e n t, t he N ew J er s eySupr eme C our tfound on di r ectappea l that“the [tri al] co u rten su red that d u ri n g the c o u rse o f th e tri al m o st j u rors w er e as s embl ed att he B ur l i ngt on C ount yC our tH ous e and tra n sp o rte d d ire c tlyto th e M e rc e r C o u n tyC o u rt H o u se w ith at t empt s t o m i ni m i ze the expos ur e t o t he haw ki ng of pape r s en r out e t o t he courthous e. ” I d. T h e N ew Jerse yS u p rem e C o u rt fur t hernot ed that“w heneve r[def ens e couns el ] r eques t ed [dur i ng t r i al t hat ] t he court
. . . ques t i on j ur or s conce r ni ng any p re ju d icia l h e a d lin e s a n d a c c o u n ts, th e c o u rt d id a sk th e ju ro rs to acknow l edge bya s how of hands i f theyhad s een orr ead a ny n e w s a c c o u n ts o f

th e trial a n d th a t o n e a c h o f th e se o c c a sio n s it r ece i ved no r es pons e. ” I d. H arris’ s arg u m en t i s ex clus ivelyb ase d o n the tri al co u rt ’s determ i nati on t hat a pr esum pti on of p rej ud i ce aga i nsthim arose as to the in h ab it an ts of

M erc er C o u n tyb ec au se o f th eir ex p o su re t o pr etr i al publ i ci t y . Fr om that , H arr i s ar gues thatanyfor ei gn j ur or s i m panel ed i n M er cerC ount ys houl d ip so fa c to be p resu m ed to b e p rejud iced
. H arris r eli es o n the S u p rem e C o u rt d ec isi o n s to a rgu e tha t th e statem en ts bythe f o reign juro rs dur i ng voi rdi r e thatt heycoul d be and w er e unbi as ed s houl d be di s r egar ded w hol es al e as untrus t w or t hy , even w hen voi rdi r e w asI n G r oppi , t he C our t , ci t i ng R i deau , st at ed: “[o]n atl east 6 one occ as i on t hi s C our thas expl i ci t l yhel d t hatonl ya cha nge of venue w as cons t i tut i onal l ys uffi ci ent t o as s ur e t he ki nd of i m par t i al j ur yt hatis gua r ant eed byt he Four t eenth A m endment
. ” G r oppi , 400 U
. S. at510 ( di s cus s i ng R i deau , 3 7 3 U
. S
. at 72 3 ). 11 conduct ed w i t hi n a comm uni t yw i t h l i t t l e pr ej udi ci al pr etr i al p u b licity . H e d isc o u n ts th e m e a su re s ta k e n b yth e trial ju d g e to pr eventi m panel i ng j ur or s w ho w er e bi as ed and t o s hi el d t he for ei gn j ur or s fr om bei ng expos ed t o pr ej udi ci al m edi a cove r age d u rin g trial. W e ca nnotdeci de thi s cas e on the bas i s of the opi ni ons on w hi ch H arr i s depends forhi s ar gum entthatonce a cour thas found that“pr etr i al publ i ci t yi n connec t i on w i t h a capi t al tr i al ha[s] .
. . t ai nted the jurypo ol .
. . the d efen dan t[i s] enti t l ed as a m a tter o f f e d e ra l co n stitu tio n a l law to a c h a n g e o f v e n u e to anothercounty . ” Mu ’Min v . V irg in ia , 500 U
. S. 415, 427 ( 1991) ( ci t i ng Irv in , 366 U
. S. 717)
. N one of the Supr eme C our tcas es t hatH arr i s r el i es on addr es s ed, oreven ment i oned, the us e of a for ei gn j ur yt o amel i or at e the ef fec t s of pr etr i al publ i ci t y . E ven in th e o n e o p in io n th a t h a s la n g u a g e th a t o n its f a c e a p p e a rs to s u p p o rt H a rr is ’s p o s itio n , G ro p p i v. W isc o n sin , 400 U
. S. 505 (1 9 7 1 ), th e C o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th a t th e re “ a re m a n yw a y s to

6 tryto a ss u re th e k in d o f im p a rtial ju ryth a t th e F o u rte e n th A m endmentguar ant ees . ” I d. at 50 9
. N eith er G ro

p p i n o r R i deau c o n sid e re d w h e th e r th e im p a n e lm e n t o f a f o re ig n ju ryc o u ld achi eve the s ame end. T h e sa m e c a n b e sa id o f th e c o u rts o f

a p p e a ls d e c isio n s to w h ic h H a rr is c ite s . See G aski n v. Sec’y, D ep’tof C orr. , 494 F .3 d 9 9 7 , 1 0 0 4 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); G os s v. N el s on , 439 F. 3d 621, 6 2 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); D an i el s v. W oo dford , 428 F. 3d 1181, 1210 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Higgs , 3 5 3 F .3 d 2 8 1 , 3 0 7 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); N

eve rs v. K i l l i nger , 1 6 9 F
. 3 d 3 5 2 , 3 6 2 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ); P ruet tv. N

orris, 1 5 3 F
. 3 d 5 7 9 , 5 8 5 -86 (8th C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ). I n anyevent , w e ca nnotdeci de thi s cas e on the bas i s of a n yo f th o se a u th o rities b e c a u se , as w e n o ted a t th e o u tse t, th is cas e i s governed byA E D PA
. H arr i s m us ts how thatthe N ew12 J er s eySupr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on uphol di ng the us e of f or ei gn j ur or s t o amel i or at e the ef fec t s of the pr etr i al publ i ci t yw as contr aryt o l aw cl ear l yes t abl i s hed bythe Supr eme C our tof the U n ite d S ta te s . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ). E v e n H a rris conce des t hatt he Supr eme C our thas nevers quar el ycons i der ed t hi s i s s ue. A re c e n t d e c isio n o f

th e S u p re m e C o u rt ill u stra tes its defe r ent i al appr oach t o t he s t at e court s ’ deci s i ons , even i n t he fac e of w hatappea r s t o be i t s doubtaboutthe mer i t s of that deci s i on. I n R e n ico v . L e tt , - - U
. S. - - , 2010 W L 1740525, at*5 ( M ay3, 2010) , t he C our tr evi ew ed the Si xth C i r cui t ’ s gr antof a w r i tof habe as corpus t o a def endantw ho w as r etr i ed form ur der fol l ow i ng t he tr i al j udge’ s gr antof a mi s t r i al aft erthe j ury“had d e lib e ra ted f

o r a t lea st f

o u r h o u rs f

o llo w in g a re lativ e lysh o rt, an d fa r fro m co m p lex, tri al .
. . . ” T h e M ichig an S u p rem e C o u rt had conc l uded ther e w as no vi ol at i on of the D oubl e J eopar dy C la u s e b e c a u s e th e tr ia l c o u rt e x e rc is e d its s o u n d d is c re tio n . I d. at*4
. T he fe deral dis t ri ctcou rtgrant ed a w ri tof h abeas co rpus, and the Si xt h C i r cui taff i r m ed, both concl udi ng thatthe tr i al cour t ’ s decl ar at i on of a mi s t r i al cons t i tut ed an a bus e of d is c re tio n b e c a u s e th e re w a s n o m a n if e s t n e c e s s ity. I

d. at*5 T h e S u p re m e C o u rt re v e rse d a n d its re a so n in g is i ns t ruct i ve her e. I ts t at ed thatthe ques t i on “i s notw hetherthe t r i al j udge s houl d have de cl ar ed a mi s t r i al
. I ti s noteven w hetheri tw as an abus e of di s cr et i on forhert o have done s o- t he appl i cabl e s t andar d on di r ectr evi ew . T he ques t i on under A E D PA i s i ns t ead w hetherthe det erm i nat i on of the M i chi gan Supr eme C our tt hatt her e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on w as ‘ an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of .
. . cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , ’ ” and i tl at erexpl ai ned thatthe appl i cat i on m us tbe “obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e. ” I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. I n r ever s i ng t he C our tof A ppeal s , t he C our ts t at ed i n a footnot e, “w hether t he tr i al j udge w as r i ghtorw r ong i s notthe pert i nentques t i on underA E D PA
. ” I

d. at*9 n. 3. I tnot ed thatthe M i chi gan Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on, “w hi l e notnece s s ar i l ycorr ect- w as notobj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e. ” I d. at*9. A ppl y i ng L e tt

to th is c a se , o u r w a yis c lea r. H a d H a rris req u ested a c h an g e o f v en u e a t a fe d era l tri al, the f ed era l cou rt13 l i kel yw oul d have gr ant ed i t
. I n fac t , even the N ew J er s ey S u p re m e C o u rt u se d th e o p p o rtu n ityto o p in e o n th e n e e d to cons i dera venue change i n t he futur e unders i m i l ar c ir c u m s ta n c e s . S ee H

a rris II , 716 A
. 2d at471. B utthi s w as not a fe der al , buta s t at e, t r i al
. W e ca nnothol d t hatthe N ew J er s ey cour t s ’ deci s i on t o i m panel for ei gn j ur or s aft ert aki ng car eful ste p s to e n su re a n im p a rtial a n d u n b ias e d ju ryw a s a n o b jec tiv e ly u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f f e d e ra l law . W e th e re f

o re w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f H a rris’ s p e tit io n f

o r a w rit of h abeas co rpus. I a p p e n d a sta tem e n t b yJu d g e P o llak , a m e m b e r o f th is p a n e l.D i s s ent i ng i n S ta te v . H a r r is , 716 A
. 2d 45 8, 507 ( 1998) 7 (“ H a rris II ” ), Ju stic e H a n d ler d e sc rib e d th e p re trial p u b lici ty th is w ay : “A s ea of

hor r endous , s ens at ion ali s t i c, and unr emi t t ant publ i ci t yengul fe d th i s p r os ecut i on. T he Tre nt oni an , a d a ilytab lo id n e w sp a p e r, w a s th e p rim a ry , alm o st e x c lu siv e , so u r c e o f th is u n a b a te d to rr e n t.” 14 P o lla k , D is tr i ct

Judge
. I jo in th e c o u rt’s f

in e o p in io n . W h a t is a t issu e in th is pr ofoundl yunfor tunat e ca s e i s di ct at ed bythi s cour t ’ s gr antof a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yi ns t ruct i ng couns el t o addr es s the q u e s t i o n wh e t h e rt h e a f f i r ma n c e b yth e Ne w J e r s e yS u p r e me C o u rto f “ the tri al co u rt ’s de cisi o n to im p an el a f o reign jury r athert han tr ans fert he ca s e t o a di ffe r entvenue i n l i ghtof the pr etr i al publ i ci t y ” or ches t r at ed bythe Tre nt oni an cons t i tut ed 7 w hat28 U
. S. C
. § 2254( d) ( 1) t erm s “an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of[] cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw [] as det erm i ned bythe S up rem e C ou rtof the U nit ed S t at es. ” S i nce, as the co urtno t es, H arr i s does not“ar gue thatthe tr i al cour ti m panel ed j ur or s w ho w er e ac tual l ybi as ed, ” w hati s ati s s ue i s w hetheranydeci s i on or l i ne of de ci s i ons of the Supr eme C our tdi r ect s that“tr ans fert o a di ffe r entvenue” s houl d, as a mat t erof fe der al cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement , have be en t aken a s a pr ophy l act i c meas ur e, addi t i onal t o ut i l i zi ng j ur or s fr om anothercounty , t o m i ni m i ze t he d ang er that the p retri al pu bli ci t yw ou l d g enerat e j uror bi as. T he court ’ s opi ni on convi nci ngl ydemonstr at es that , thus far , no cas e dec i ded byt he Supr eme C our thas puti n pl ace s uch a con st i tuti on al m and at e go verni ng the p rocedu res of st at e cou rt s. T he courtr i ght l yobs erves that“[h] ad H arr i s r eques t ed a c hange of venue ata fe der al t r i al , the fe der al cour tl i kel yw oul d have gr ant ed i t
. ” I w oul d onl yadd thati f, underci r cumst ance s compar abl e t o t hos e obt ai ni ng atH arr i s ’ s tr i al , a fe der al tr i al c o u rt w e re to d e c lin e to m o v e th e trial to a n o th e r v e n u e , itis to b e h o p e d , an d in d e e d e x p e c ted , tha t a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls w o u ld concl ude thatt he tr i al cour t ’ s rul i ng w as an abus e of di s cr et i on. Bu tt h e c a s e b e f

o r e u s i s a s t a t e c a s e , wi t h r e s p e c tt o wh i c h we ar e r equi r ed t o vi ew t he s t at e court ’ s deci s i on thr ough t he li m it ing p ri sm o f § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ). A n d there fo re, as the c o u rt ’s opi ni on es t abl i s hes , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of habe as corpus15 m us tbe af

fi r m ed.