## In the



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

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

N o. 09

- 2560 J OS EP H A. S T OCK, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. D AVE R ED NOUR, W ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C448

—David H . C oar, Judge
.
A RG UE D A PRI L 5, 2010

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 3, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB ROOK, Chie f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , Cir cu i tJudg e . On J une 20, 19 97, Conni e W agner w as f ound brutal l y m urdere d i n herhom e in Pal ati ne, I l l i noi s. W agner ’ s wr i st had been bo und with a te l ephone cor d an d she had been s tabbe d m or e than 180 ti m es . S he a ppea r ed to ha ve s tr ug g led w i thhe r a ss ai l an t o r a s s a i l a nt s . J o s e phS t o c k, Wagne r ’ s f o r merb o y f r i e nd , be ca m e th e pr i m e su spe ct
. Thr ee m o nths afte r the2 N o. 09

- 2560

m urder, S toc k’ s fri end A lf onso N aj er a t ol d the pol i ce th at f our days a fterthe m urder St ockhad confess ed to ki l l i ng W ag n er. I nexpli cabl y, the pol i ce l eft the o stensib l y v i ol ent S toc k o n the str eet s f orm or e than th r ee y ea r s afte r l ea r ni ngo fhi s pur po r te d c o nfes si o n, ar re st in g h im on ly in Fe b ru ar y 2 00 1. Fu rt h er co m p lic at in g m at te rs , no n e o f th e p h ys ica l ev id en c e f o u n d in W agn er’s h o m e p ointed to Stock; th e clothes he w ore th e dayo fthe murde r b o r e no t r ac es o fb l o o d; a nd St ockv o l un t a r i l y we ntt o the p o l i c e s t a t i o n t o a s s i st wi t h t he i n v e s t i g a t i o n o n th e d a y a ft e r th e mu r d e r a n d, at that ti m e, sho w ed no ind i cati ons of a str uggl e. I t was und i sputed that W agnerwas i nvol ved i n drugs and w as in d ebt to drug deal er s with gangaffi l i ati ons, and her ne i g hb o r s r epo r te d s ee i ng a Hi spa ni c m andr i ving sl o wl y do w n he r st r ee t be f o r e th e m ur der

. S ti l l, r el y i ng pr i m ar i l y o n Naj er a’ s t ip, S to ckwas c ha r g ed an d c o nvicted i n 20 02 of first- d egree m urd er. O u r t a s k i s not to p ass j ud gm en t on th e facts su rr o un di ngthe c r i me a nd the i nv e s t i g a t i o n. We c o nc e de re ad ily th at so m e s u gg es t St oc k’s inn oc en c e, w h ile o th e r s s e e m q u i t e c o n s i s t e n twi th h i s gui l t. R a th e r, we m ust d e c i de wh e the r thi s i s o ne o fthe c a s e s i n w hi ch a federa l co urt m ay i ssue a wri t o fhabea s co rpus to s o meo ne c o nv i c t e d in s t a t e c o ur t, g i v e n the s t a nd a r ds setfor th i n the A nti ter ro ri sm and Effecti ve Death Pe na l tyActo f19 96 ( “AEDPA ”) , 28 U

. S

. C. § 22 54

. AEDPA ti g ht l y c o ns tr ains o urr ev i ew. S to cka r g ue s th at hi s r i g ht to c r o ss - ex ami ne the wi tn es ses a g ains t hi m was unc o nsti tuti onal l y c on str ai ned; i n part i cul ar, he b el i eve s that th e t ria l co u rt ’s e vi d e n tia ry d ec isio n s p re ve n te d h imN o. 09

- 2560 3 f r o m e ffe c t i v e l y c h a l l e n g i n gN aj e r a ’ s t e s t i mo n y . We co nc l ude , ho wev er, tha t th e I l l i no i s co ur t r ev i ew i ng St oc k’s co n vic ti o n d id n otu n re as on ab ly a p p ly c lea rly es tabl i sh ed fede r all aw, b ec ause th e te st i m o ny he in tended to el i ci t was i nconcl usi ve f orthe pu rpos e o f i m pea ch m en t. W e th er efo r e affi r m the de ci si on of the di st r i ctc o ur t to di smi ss hi s pet i ti o n.

I On the ev en in g bef or e the m urder, W agnerto l d Sto ck th at sh e w as m oving to T ex as. Th is m arked the en d of a dat i ngr el at i o ns hi p tha t ha d l as te d f o r s ev er almonths

. The sta te’ s theor y o fthe case was that St ock, angr y with W agnero verthe br ea k-up, used a copy o fherke y t o en ter th e hou se, kil led h er, cha ng ed i nt o her broth er’s c l o th e s , a n d d r o v e o ff i n h e r c a r . T h e l a s t o f th o s e s t e ps w as su p p o r t e d by the f act th at Stock’s fi ng erp rints w ere f o und in h i s ex - g i r l f r i en d’ s ca r . A s no te d abo ve , the ph y s i c a l e v i d e n c e d i s c o v e r e d i n Wa g n e r ’ s h o me

— ha ir, fi nger pri nts, and f oo tpri nts

— did noti nculpate S toc k. Centralto the st at e’s case was the tes ti m ony ofN aj er a. N aj era’ s te st i m o ny i s al so the s ubj ec t o fthi s appe al, a nd so we r ev i ew i t in d etail he r e. Naj er a te st i fi ed th atf o ur days a fter the m urder, S toc k c al l ed hi m and sai d that he m urd ered W agn er beca us e h e w a s angry. A fter a few m onths, N aj er a w ent to the pol i ce and r el ayed th is story. H e signe d a statem en t, w ritten by a p rosecu tor, outl i ni ng the co nver sa tio n . H e a l so agr eed to part i ci pate i n a r ec o r ded tel eph o ne c al l wi thS to cki n whi chhe w oul d tryto e l i ci t a notherco nfe ssi on. The r eco rded4 N o. 09

- 2560

c o nv e r s a t i o n di d n o tg o as the s t a t e h a d a nt i c i pa t e d. St ockm ade a num bero funsol i ci ted, excul patory sta tem en ts dur i ngthe c al l ; Naj er a i g no r ed so m e an d affi r m ed o th er s. Naj er a al so f ai l ed to ment i o n the c o nfes si o n ex pl i ci tl y . The cl o se st th at N aj er a ca m e to co nf ro nti ng S toc k was the f ol l owing exchange: St oc k: I m ea n sh it

— y o u s ti l l b el i ev e m e, do n’ t y o u? N aj era: Ye ah, Ib el i ev e y o u, dude

. Ib el i ev e y o u, man. Ij ust want to m ake sur e that yo u d idn’t sayso m eth i ngt o a nybo dy el se a nd the y c o m e to c o ur t an d the n. St ock : That what? N aj er a: You di dn ’ t t el l anyb ody el se

— you know whatI ’ m s ay i ng? Caus e th eyc o m e to c o ur t an d th e n Il o o kl i k e , y o u kn o w. St ock : Tel l anyb ody what? Naj e r a : Any thing . Ime a n di d the y s ub po e na a nyb o dy el se? S t o c kb e l i e v e s tha th i s e xc l a mat i o n, “ Te l l a nyb o dy w ha t?” sho ws tha t he ne ve r c o nfes se d t o Naj er a an d thus di d not know wh at h i s fri end cauti oned ag ai nst “te l l [ i ng] anyb ody e l se. ” N aj er a’ s r epeate d f ai l ures to chal l en ge S toc k’ s deni al s, acc or ding to St ock, further u n d er m in e N ajer a’s cla im th at Sto c k c on fes se d to h im b efo re th e p h on e c all. K n ow i ng tha t Naj er a would te sti fy about the c onfessi on, S to c k pla nned to use the re cor dings to i m peach N aj er a, bysho w in g that N aj er a nei therchal l enged St ock ’ s e xculpato rys ta tem ents norf ol l owed thr ough o nN o. 09

- 2560 5 hi s pr o m i se t o o bt ain c o nfi r m at i o n o fS to ck ’ s co nfes si o n. Befo r e tr i al, the state fi l ed a m o ti o n in lim ine to b arthe i ntro du cti on o fthe reco rded conve rs ati on a s hea rs ay. I t a rgued that the o ut- of

- cour t co nver sat i on was no th i ng but “s el f

- se r ving st at ement s by an ac cus ed” a nd thus i nadm i ssibl e hea rs ay, ci ti ng Peop l ev. Pat t e rs on , 61 0 N

. E. 2d 16 ( I l l

. 1 992 )

. S to cka r g ue d tha t he di d no t i nt en d to use the st at em en ts to pro ve the t ruth o fthe m att er as se rt ed , i.e. hi s innocence, but to i m peach N aj er a by om i ssi on. The tr i alco urt concl ud ed that the r eco rded c o n v e r s a t i o n s w e r e i na d mi s s ib l e h e a r s a y . A tth e s a me ti m e, how eve r, the j ud ge sai d that i fN aj er a deni ed that he f ai l ed to c o nfr o ntS to ckabo utthe c o nfessi o n dur i ng th e ca l l, the n the de fen se c o ul d qu est i o n Naj er a ab o ut the s ubstance ofthe cal l, al though i t co uld noti ntro du ce the actual re cor ded conve rs ati on. A t the sta te’s request, th e tr i alc o ur t l at erc l ar i fi ed i ts ruli ng, pe r m i tt i ngthe i nt r o duct ion o fNaj er a’ s “t el l a nybo dy el se ” st at ement to re but the defe nse’ s conte nti on that he did n ot rai se the i ssue w i th S toc k, but sti l l pro hibi ti ng the defense f ro m intr oducingStock ’ s “Tel l anyb ody what?” r esponse . I n s ho r t, the c o ur t dec i ded th atthe de fen se c o uld co nf ro nt N ajer a about hi s f ai l ure to ra i se the c onfess i on du ri ng the r eco rded cal l, bu t in thatcas e, the sta te co ul d i nt r o duce Naj er a’ s al l us i o n t o the s uppo se d c o nfession, an d th e de fense co uld not resp ond w ith Stock’s potenti al l y e xculpato ryr esponse . A t t ri al, the defe nse cro ss- exam i ned N aj er a e xtensi vel y about a r ange of i ss ue s, b uts ta y ed awayfr o m the r ec o r ded co nv er sa ti o n. A s no ted ea rl i er, S toc k was co nvi cted o ffi rs t- degre e m urder. H e was se ntenced to 90 ye ar s’ i m pri sonm ent.6 N o. 09

- 2560 St ockappeal ed hi s co nvi c ti on t o the I l l i noi s Courto f A pp eal s, r ai si ng fi ve i ssues i ncl ud i ng the Conf ro ntati on Cl au se c l ai m that f o r m s th e ba si s o fhi s § 22 54 pe ti ti o n. St ockar gued that the r est ri ctio ns pl aced o n the cro ssex ami na ti o n o fNaj er a bythe t r i alc o ur t vi o l at ed hi s r i g ht guar antee d by the S i xth and Four tee nth A m endm ents t o c o nfr o nth i s a c c us er . The a pp e l l a t e c o ur tquo t e d D e l aw a re v. Fensterer, 474 U.S

. 15 (19 85) , f orthe propos i ti on th a t“ th e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e g u a r a n t e e s a n o p po rtunity f o r e ffe c t i v e c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n, n o t c r o s s - e x a mi nati on that i s e ffecti ve i n w hatev erway, and to wh ateve r extent, the defe nse m i ght wis h. ” Id. at 20 . ( In th is connect i on, the appellate cour t a pp ear ed to i gnor e a ser i es ofS up re m e Cour t ca ses, di scusse d i n further det ail bel ow, hol ding that cer tai n l i m i tat i ons on cr oss exam i nati on a re unconsti tuti onal

. ) The co urt al so discussed the pro pri etyo fthe evi denti ar y deci si on under I l l i no i s l a w, n o t e d the di s c r e t i o n g i v e n t o t r i a l c o ur ts u n d e r s t a t e l a w t o r e a c h e v i d e n t i a r y d e c i s i o n s , a n d c o mm en te d tha t, e ve n i fthe de ci si o n was in er r o r, a ny error w ou ld h a v e b een harm less. Th e ap p ell ate cou rt affir m ed Sto c k’s co n vic tio n an d se n te n c e, an d t h e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtd en ied h is p et itio n for lea ve to ap p ea l. Fi nd i ng no re m edy i n the state co urts , S toc k turned to th e fe d e r a l c o u r t s a n d t o th e wr i to fh a b e a s c o r p u s . T he U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct C ou rtf orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o f Illino is c on c lu d ed th at Sto c k s at isfie d th e t h r es h old pr o ce dur alr equi r ement s f o r the § 2 25 4 pet i ti o n, b ut concl ud ed th at t he m er i ts ofS toc k’ s cl ai m di d not cl ear the hi gh ba r f orr el i ef

— S to ck d id no t es tabl i shtha t th e Illino is a p p ella te co u rtu n re as o n a b ly a p p lied cle ar lyN o. 09

- 2560 7
est abl i shed federa l l aw wh en itrej ecte d hi s Confro ntati on Clause cl ai m . On thi s basi s, the dist ri ct court d en i ed Stock’s p etit io n f o r a w rit of habea s corp us . A t Stock’s requ est, the d istri ct cou rt certified h is r eq u e s t for a certi fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty.

II O u r r e v i e w o fS t o c k ’ s p e t i t i o n i s g o ve r ne d b y AE DP A, 28 U

. S. C. § 2 254, wh i ch perm i ts a federa l co urt to i ssue a wr i to fh a b e a s c o r pus onl y i fthe s t a t e c o ur tr e a c he d a deci si on on the m er i ts ofa cl ai m , and that deci si on w as eit h er “c on tr ar y t o, or in vo lve d an u n re as on ab le ap p li cation o f, cl early established Fed eral l aw , as de term in ed by the S up re m e Cour t o fthe U ni ted S tat es, ” i d. § 2254 (d)(1), or “w a s b ased on an un reason able d eterm i nati on o fthe f acts i n l i ght o fthe evi dence pres ented i n the St ate co urt proce edi ng, ” id. § 2254 ( d)( 2). Stock bring s h i s p e t i t i o n un de r § 2 2 5 4 ( d) ( 1 )

. Whe the r the st ate c o u r t ’s d ec isio n w as co n tr ar y t o or an u n re as on ab le appli cati on o fcl ear l y e stab lished federa l l aw “i s a m i x ed qu es tio n of law an d fac t t h at w e t ra d itio n ally al so re vi ew de nov o but with a g ra nt o fdefer ence to any re asonablest ate co urt deci si on. ” Jac ks on v. Fr ank, 34 8 F. 3d 658, 66 2 ( 7th Ci r. 2 003) ( quoti ng Sc ha ff v. Sn yd er, 19 0 F.3 d 51 3, 52 2 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ) (em p h as is in orig i n a l ) ) . In th i s c a s e , a s i n a l l c a s e s th a t c o me t o u s u n d e r AE DP A, we emph a s i z e th a to u r d e c i s i o n e x p r e s s e s n o i n d e p e n d e nt opi ni on about the c or re ctnes s of the s tat e co urt’ s j ud gm ent. S e c t i o n 2 2 5 4 ( d) ( 1 ) h a s t wo b r a nc hes

— the s o- cal l ed “co ntra ryto ” a nd “unre aso nabl e a pp l i cati on o f ” theor i es.8 N o. 09

- 2560 T he I ll inois app ell ate cou rt’s dec isi on w ill b e “con trary to” clearly estab li sh ed fede ral law “if th e stat e c o u rt ar r i ve [ d] a t a co nc l us ion op po si te t o tha t r ea ch ed by[ th e Suprem e] Courto n a quest i on o fl aw ” o r “i fthe sta te co ur t co nfr o nt [ ed] f ac ts tha t [ wer e] mate r i al ly i ndi st i ng ui sh ab l e f r o m a r el ev an t S upr em e C o ur t pr ec ede nta nd ar riv e[d ] ata re su lt op p os ite to [th e Su p re m e C ou rt ].” Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or, 529 U .S . 3 6 2 , 4 05 (2000). O u r re vie w is ofthe sta te cour t’ s deci si on, notthe case s i t ci ted ( or f ai l ed to ci te) al ong the way. S ee E a rly v . P a ck er, 53 7 U.S

. 3, 8 (2002) ( “[Section 225 4(d )( 1)] d oes not even requ ire a w a reness of [ Suprem e Court] case s, so l ong as n eithe r the r eas oni ng northe re sul t o fthe sta te- cour t deci si on contr adic ts them

. ”) ( em phasi s in or i gi nal )

. I n thi s co urt, S t o c ka r g u e s th a tth e I l l i n o i s a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ’ s h o l d i ng w as co n tr ar y t o t h e Su p r e m e C ou rt ’s d ec isio n s in D e l aw are v. Va n Arsdall, 4 7 5 U. S

. 6 7 3 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , a nd D avi s v. Alas ka , 415 U .S. 30 8 (1 97 4). St oc k d id n otp re se n t t h is ar gum ent t o the di str i ct c ourt, however, a n d so i t i s no t proper l y b ef or e us. Even i fhe ha d, w e be li eve that S to ck ’ s ca se i s be tt erunde r st o o d as a n as se r ti o n tha t th e st at e co ur t un reaso nabl y a ppl i ed th e appl i cabl e l aw; the f ac ts o fS to ck ’ s ca se a r e di sti ng ui sh ab l e f r o m the S upr eme Co ur t pr ec ede nt s, b utthe y d o c al l t o min d the centr alhol dings o ftho se case s. S toc k t ri es val i antl y t o show that the I lli noi s co urt f ai l ed to applytho se p r i n c i p l e s t o h i s c a s e , a n d i t i s t o th i s a r g u me n t th a t we no w turn. I n or der fora sta te cour t’ s deci si on t o re fl ect an “unre asonab l e appli cati on” of go ver ni ng Suprem e Court j uri spr ude nc e, the s ta te c o ur t m us t ha ve do ne s o m ethi ngN o. 09

- 2560 9

w or se than m er el y “appl[ yi ng] cl ear l y e stabl i shed federa l l aw er ro neousl y o r i ncor re ctl y. ” The a pp l i cati on o ffedera l law m u st be “ o b je c tiv ely u n re as on ab le” be for e re lief is possibl e und er thi s bra nch of A ED PA . S ee Wi l l i a ms , 52 9 U. S

. a t 4 0 9

- 1 0

. W e ha v e o b s e r v e d tha t a s t a t e c o ur tm ay act unreason ab l y b y f ai l i ng to applyes tabl i shed federa l l aw t o f acts thatar e m ate ri al l y ind i sti ngui shabl e t o thos e e xam i ned by the S up re m e Cour t. S ee Wi l l ia m s v. Bart ow , 481 F.3d 49 2, 4 9 8 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ). E ve n in t h is i nsta n c e, A ED PA ti ghtl y c onst ra i ns the ava i l abi l i ty of th e w rit, pa rt icu lar ly w h er e a s t a te co u rth as en ga ge d in a care fu l i nquir y into the r el evantquesti on

— here , whe the r the r i g hto fconf r o nt a t i o n wa s i nfr i ng e d. Com pare Li ndh v. M urphy, 96 F. 3d 856 ( 7th Cir. 19 96) ( e n b anc ), re v’d, 52 1 U.S

. 320 ( 1997 ) ( fi nd i ng no vi ol ati on o f the Co nfr o nt a t i o n Cl a us e unde r the AEDP A s t a nd a r ds o fr ev i ew) , wi th Li ndh v. M urphy, 124 F .3 d 899 (7th C ir. 1997 ) ( i ssui ng the wri t on the sam e f acts apply i ng the pre A E D PA stan d ard s on rem an d ). Turningto the l aw that Stoc k asse rt s w as app l i ed unreason ably, w e beg in by recalling that the Su p rem e C ou rt has char acte ri zed the ri ght o fco nfr ontat ion as “par am ount. ” D avis , 41 5 U

. S. at31 9. I t has al so w ar ned that “w he re con stitut ional ri gh ts d irectly affecting the ascert a i nme nto fg ui l ta r e i mpl i c a t e d, the h e a r s a y r ul e may not be a pp l i ed m echani sti cal l y t o de featthe ends of j usti ce. ” Cham b e rs v. M i s s i s s ippi, 410 U

. S. 284, 302 (1973 ). Furtherm ore, t he Courthas m ade cl earthatthe l i m i tati o ns o n i m pea ch m en t m ayc o ns ti tu te v i o l at i ons of the Con f r o nt at i o n Cl au se . I n D avis , the Co ur t r ev er se d the deci si on o fthe tr i alco urt to enf or ce a pro tective o rder10 N o. 09

- 2560 that preve nted the defe nse fro m confr onti ng a keypro sec ut i o n wi tn es s wi th hi s j uv en i l e cr i m i na l r ecord. And i n C ha m bers , the Court rej ected a t ri alco urt’ s a pp l i cati on of sta te evi denti ar y rul es that precl ud ed th e d efense f r o m e x a mi n i n ga w i tn e s s i n a ma nn e r t h a tw o u l d i mpli cate thatwitnes s in the cri m i nal co nd uct. St ockas ser ts that cl ear l y e stabl i shed federa l l aw provi des tha t “the Confr ontat i on Cl ause i s v i ol ate d w h en a tr ial c ou rtu n re as on ab ly re st ric ts or c om p let ely p rohibits a de fen d a n t from asking q ue stions n eces sary t o i mp e a c h the c r e d ib i l i t y o fw i tn e s s t e s t i mo n y . ” We accept this for m ula ti on f orpurposes o fthe ar gum ent. I nde ed, we to o ha ve no te d th at st at e i nt er es ts , i nc luding thos e r efl ecte d i n the sta te’ s e vi denti ar y r ule s, m ay need to b en d i n o r dert o en su re tha t defen dan ts ha ve the r i g ht to c on fro n t th e w itn es se s aga in st th e m . S e e, e . g. , D unl ap v. Hepp , 436 F.3d 73 9, 74 2 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). B u t itis eq u ally w ell es ta b lish ed th at t h e la w ca lls for a c as e-s p ec ific i nquir y into a num bero fco m peti ng pri or i ti es. S ee i d. As the S upr eme Co ur t sa i d i n Va n Arsdall , “ [ T]r i al j ud ges re tai n w i de l ati tude i nsof ar as the C on f ro ntati on Clause i s concerned to i m pose re aso nabl e l i m i ts on su chcross- ex ami na ti o n b as ed o n c o nc erns abo ut, a m o ng o th erthi ng s, ha r as sment, pr ej udi ce , c o nfus i o n o fthe iss u es , th e w itn es s ’ s afe ty , or in te rro ga tio n th at is re p et iti ve oro nl y m argin al l y r el evant
. ” 4 75 U

. S. at67 9. Even St oc k’s form u lat ion of th e la w ac kn ow l e d g e s th at it is onl y un reaso na ble l i mi t s tha tc r e a t e Co nfr o nt a t i o n Cl ause p roblem s. B efore any later court can de c id e w h eth er a lim ita tio n im p os ed by th e t ria l c ou rtw as rea so n ab le o r unr ea so nabl e, i t m us t l o o k at th e po te nt i altesti m o ny an d the b as es f o r e xc l us i o n.N o. 09

- 2560 11 The t r i alc o ur t i n S to ck’ s ca se was a war e o fthe fi ne l i nes that i t was as ked to draw. The co urt endeavor ed to ba l an ce S to ck ’ s ab i l i tyt o c ha l l en g e N aj er a’ s te st i m o ny agains t the basi c e v iden tiary princip le that selfser vi ng, out-o f

- cour t s tat em ents ar e inadm i ssibl e f or the purpos e o fexcul pati ng the decl ar ant. S ee, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Haddad, 10 F. 3d 1252, 1258 (7th C ir. 19 93 ) ( “Ordi nari l y a defendant’s se l f

- ser vi ng, excul patory, o uto fc o ur t st at ement s woul d no t be a dm i ss ibl e.”)

. The tr i alco urt i ni ti allyexcl ud ed St ock ’ s s tat em ents as i nadm i ssibl e hea rs ay. In re sponse to the m oti on f or clarification , t he de fense as ked the cou rt to ad m it S tock’s sta tem ent, “Tel l anyb ody what?” for the purpose o f i m peachi ng N aj er a’ s cl ai m thathe c onfro nted St ockwith the c o nfe s s i o n du r i ngthe r e c o r de d p ho ne c a l l

. De fe ns e counselurg ed that thi s was a perm i ssibl e us e, and that th e exchange w as not bei ng o ffer ed f orthe tr uth of the m atter a ssert ed, se e F ED . R. E V ID . 8 01 ( c)

. Butthe tr i alco u rt w or ri ed that the j ury w oul d take thi s s tat em en t as Stock’s d en ialof his gu ilt, and the cou rt concl ud ed that i t co uld notco untenance the prej ud i ce that w oul d com e a l ong w i th adm i tti ng the ev i dence. The I l l i no i s appe l l at e co ur t affi r m ed th i s co nc l us i o n, r el y i ngo n P eop le v. Ho tsy, 49 7 N

. E.2 d 334 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 19 86 ). Despi te these l i m i tat i ons, S toc k was per m i tte d to cro ss- exam i ne N aj er a e x tensiv el y, i ncl ud i ng o n i ssues o fpo te nt i alb i as a nd o n h i s f ai l ur e di rectly t o c o nfr o nt St ockwith hi s purpor ted co nfe ssi on duri ng the r eco rd ed conve rs ati on. I t m ay be t ro ubl i ng tha t S toc k was bar re d f r o m pr o vi di ngthe j ur y with th e co nt ex t su r r o undi ng N aj er a’ s s tat em ents and om iss ions. But i t was up to12 N o. 09

- 2560 the t ri alco urt to draw the l i ne, and w e a re notpre pared to saythati ts acti ons l acke d supp or t. Beyond these co unte rv ai l i ng i nter est s, we thi nk tha t th er e i s a m o r e funda m en ta l problem w i thS to ck ’ s ar g um en t. The Co nf o r m at i o n Cl au se p erm i ts the de fen dan t “to expose to the j u ry the f acts fro m wh i ch j uror s, as th e s ole trie rs of f a c t a n d cr ed ibilit y, co u ld ap p ro p riat el y dr aw i nfer en ce s r el at i ngt o the r el i ab i l i tyo fthe w itn ess. ” D avis , 4 1 5 U

. S

. a t3 1 8
. I n th i s c o n n e c t i o n, we ar e no t co ncer ned w i th i m m ate ri al l i m i tat i ons on cr oss exam i nati on. S ee Va n Arsdall, 475 U

. S. at6 79

- 80 ( ca l l i ng f o r de fer en ce t o the tri al c o ur t when ex cl udi ng “m ar gi nal l y r el evant” e vi dence and ask i ng wh ether the j ury w oul d have had a “si gni fi cantl y di ffer ent i m pressi o n” o fthe w i tn es s’ s cr edibi l i tyha d the t es ti m o ny been ad m itted ). On ce again, the on ly qu estion be fore us i s whether the s tat e court ’ s co ncl usi on was an obj ective ly un reason able ap p li cation of th e Sup rem e C ou rt’s C o n f r o n t a t i o n Cl au s e d e c i s i o n s . I n s p e c i fi c t e r ms , we m u st as k w h et h er th e s ta te co u r t a c te d u n re as on ab ly w hen i t c oncluded that the excl ud ed tes ti m ony w as not r el ev an t en o ugh. To b eg i n wi th, we no te tha t th i s was i m pea ch m en t tes ti m ony. W e can ass um e that St ockwould have benefi tte d from be in g a b le t o in tr od u c e o u t-o f-c ou r t d en ials wi th o uts ubj ec tinghi m sel ft o c r o ss - ex ami na ti o n, b ut ex cl udi ngthi s o bv i o us he ar sa y do es no t i m pl i ca te the Con f r o nt at i o n Cl au se . Stoc kt r i es t o wor ka r o und the h e a r s a y p r o b l e m b y a r g u i n gth a tth e e p i s o d e s h o ws th atNaj er a was l y i ng : N aj er a di d no t di r ec tl y c o nfr o ntN o. 09

- 2560 13 St ockabo ut the confession ( as he pro m i sed the pol i ce he w oul d do) , and Naj er a’ s affi rm ati ons of St ock’s p ro fes si o ns o fi nno ce nc e m i g htha ve c as t do ubti n the j ury’ s m i nd o n w hetherS toc k r ea lly d id m ake an e ar l i er confess i on t o N aj er a. I m peachm ent i s ce rt ai nl y a pro per pu rpos e, but the purpor ted va l ue o fthes e s ta te m ents i s unde r cutb y the ir a m bi g ui ty
. F o r what ev err ea so n, N ajer a a n d Sto c k s p ok e e llip tic ally th ro u gh ou t t h eir conve rs ati on , ex em p lified by th e “ te ll anybody e l se”

— “T ell anybo dy w hat?” exch an ge. W e hav e r e- re ad these st ate
m en ts m any t i m es, and w e ca n fi nd nothi ng i n them th ate st ab l i sh es tha t th e two men wer e t al k i ngabo ut a con fession. E ven N aj era’s affi rm ations of Stoc k’s denia ls

— e . g. , “Ibel i eve yo u, dud e”

— ar e inconcl usi ve. F o r a l l we k no w, Naj er a was pl ay i nghi s par t i n a chara de S t o c kwa s c r e a t i ngo r a ffi r mi ngS t o c k ’ s c o v er story (rather th an the tru th ). Fu rt h er , bea rin g in m in d th e n ar ro w p er m is s i b le p u rp os e o f th e e vid en c e , t h e t ria l co u rtrea so n ab ly c ou ld have concl ud ed that ther e was lit tl e v al ue added fo r th e defen se in t he se s ta te m en ts
. De spi te S to ck ’ s ar g um ents to the c ontr ar y, we can n ot s ay w i th any degr ee of c on fid en c e t h at t h is e vid en c e if ad m itt ed w ou ld show that Naj er a was n ot t o be t rust ed. The f act that N ajer a d id n otco n tr ad ict Sto c k (w h o m igh t h a v e re ally b e e n hi s fr i e nd ) c o ul d me a n tha th e wa s l o y a l, s c a r e d, u n aw ar e, or an y nu m b er of oth er th in gs . A n d Sto c k w ou ld ha ve g aine d l i tt l e th r o ug h th e us e o f th e am biguo us “T ellanyb od y w ha t?” li ne , esp e c ial ly since the cou rt p er m itt ed th e d efe n s e t o cr os s-e x am in e N ajer a o n h is f ai l ure di r ec tl y t o r ai se the c o nfes si o n. Al th o ug h the14 N o. 09

- 2560
tr i alco urt m ay have gi ven th e sta te a s l i ght a dvantage w h en it p e rm itt ed th e s ta te to int ro d u c e t h e “ te ll anybo dy el se” stat em ent without i ncl ud i ng S toc k’ s r espo ns e, the se di st i nc ti o ns a r e su btle a t be st
. I n D avis , th e S upr eme Cou r t wor r i ed ab o ut th e ex cl us i o n of a wi tn es s’ s pr i o r o ffen se tha t woul d ha ve e xpl aine d the po l i ce ’ s su spi ci o n o fhi s i nv o l ve m en t, a nd i n C ha m bers , the tr i al cour t i m proper l y excl ud ed the tes ti m on y of seve ra l witnes ses thatst ro ngl y s ug gested thatano ther w itn es s h ad co m m i t t e d t h e c rim e a n d co n fes se d to it so o n th er ea fte r . The N aj er a- S to ck ex ch an g e i s nothi ng l i ke these exam ple s. L ike our Li ndh de ci si o ns , thi s i s a c ase whe r e th e A ED PA st andards have bi te. A s we have em phasi zed th r o u g h o u t, th e o n l y q u e s t i o n b e f o r e u s i s wh e th e r t he sta te appell ate court’ s a pp l i cati on o fcl ear l y e stabl i shed federa l l aw l i es “w el l o utside the bo und ar i es ofper m i ssibl e di ffer ences ofo pini on. ” Har daway v

. Young, 3 02 F

. 3d 75 7, 7 62 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)

. G iven the v ague ne ss o fthe conve rs ati on, we answ erthatquesti on i n the negati ve

— re aso nabl e m i nd s co uld di ffero n w hetherthe tr i al court unc o ns ti tu ti o na l l y i nfr i ng ed S to ck ’ s r i g htt o c o nf ro nt N aj er a, and th u s th e s tat e a pp el l ate co urt did not ac t unr ea so nabl y i n uph o l di ngS to ck ’ s co nv i ct i o n. I t f ol l ows ther ef or e that the di str i ct c ourtwa s cor re ct to dism iss Stock ’ s § 22 54 peti ti on. W e there f or e A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

9- 3- 10