## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 19 90

__ __ __ __ __ _

Ray D an sb y , *

* App el la nt

, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Larry Nor ris , Direc to r, Arka ns as * Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on , *

* App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 19 , 20 11

Fi le d: Ju ne 21 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ray Dan sb y was co nv i c t e d b y a jury in Ark an sa s on two co un ts of cap it al

m ur de r an d se nt en ced to de at h. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r a writ of

h a b eas co rp us

. Dan sb y ap pe al s on fiv e cl ai m s co ve red by a cert ifi c a t e o f

ap pe al ab il it y , an d he as ks th is pa ne l to ex pa nd th e cert ifi cat e wit h res pe c t t o f o u r

ot he r cl ai m s. W e affi rm in pa rt, va cat e th e di sm is sa l of Cl ai m s II an d III in Dan sb y ’s

se co nd am en de d pe ti ti on , de ny th e ap pl ic at io ns to ex pa nd th e cert ifi cat e, an d rem an d

fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.I.

A s s um m ari zed by th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t, se e Dan sb y v. St at e , 8 9 3

S.W .2d 33 1 (Ark

. 19 95 ), th e ev id en ce at tri al sh owe d th at on th e m or ni ng of Aug us t

24

, 19 92

, Dan sb y arri ve d at th e res id en ce of B r e n d a Dan sb y , hi s ex -wif e, in El

Dor ad o, Ark an sa s. Ju st in Dan sb y , th ei r ni ne -y ear- ol d so n, w as in th e li vi ng ro om

wit h Ro nn ie Kim

bl e, Bren da ’s bo y fri en d. Ju st in was ho m e wit h a co ld an d watc hi ng

te le vi si on , whi le Kim

bl e was as le ep on th e co uc h. Bren da ha d le ft earl ie r to bu y

or an ge jui ce fo r Ju st in

, an d when sh e ret ur ne d ho m e, sh e was co nf ro nt ed by Ray

as

sh e pu ll ed he r car in to he r dr iv eway. Ray twi ce or de red he r to le av e he r car, an d sh e

ev en tu al ly co m

pl ie d. Ju st in te s t i f

i e d a t t ria l th at he sa w Ray ho ld Bren da “ li ke a

sh ie ld ” b efo re s ho ot in g h er i n t he arm an d i n t he ne ck

.

Greg Ri g g i ns , a ne ig hb or fro m acro ss th e st reet

, al so of fere d an acco un t of

Bren da ’s de at h. Acco rd in g to hi s tri al te st im on y , Ri gg in s wen t to hi s fro nt do or aft er

he ari ng gu ns ho ts an d wit ne ss ed Ray an d Bren da st ru gg li ng wit h a rev ol ve r. He th en

sa w Ray kn oc k Bren da do wn, ge t th e gu n fro m he r, an d sh oo t two co ns ecu ti ve ro un ds

in to he r fro m two or th ree feet away. Bren da tri ed to ris e, an d Ray fir ed ag ai n,

al th ou gh Ri gg in s be li ev ed th e sh ot m is se d. Afte r pa us in g fo r fiv e or si x se co nd s, Ray

sh ot Bren da on ce m or e, an d h er b od y went fla t.

Ju st in te st ifi ed th at Ray th en en te red th e ho m e an d sh ot Kim bl e in th e ch es t,

at whi ch po in t Kim

bl e go t hi s own gu n fro m be ne at h th e co uc h. Kim bl e po si ti on ed

hi m se lf be hi nd th e co uc h an d at te m pt ed to ret ur n fir e, bu t hi s gu n on ly pr od uc ed

“ cl ic ki ng so un ds .” Ray ch as ed Kim bl e to th e ba ck of t h e ho us e, an d Ju st in he ard

ab ou t fiv e m or e sh ot s. Wh e n Ju st in wen t to in ve st ig at e, he sa w h is fat he r st an di ng

ov er Kim

bl e, ki ck in g hi m twi ce an d th en sa y in g so m et hi ng Ju st i n c o u ld no t

rem em be r. Ju st in acco m

pa ni ed hi s fat he r ou ts id e th e ho us e, whe re he sa w hi s m ot he r,

m ot io nl es s, wit h “ bl oo d a l l ov er he r ne ck .” Ray an d Ju st in walk ed do wn th e ro ad

,

an d a fte r th ey

sep arat ed , Ju st in cal le d t he po li ce.

-2

-El Dorad o po li ce offi cers arri ve d at Bren da ’s ho m e to fin d he r bo dy ou ts id e.

The y al so fo un d an in

jure d Kim

bl e on th e f

l o o r o f t h e ba ck be dr oo m , al on g wit h a jam m ed .38 au to m at ic pi st ol lying un de r hi m

. Kim bl e ev en tu al ly di ed of hi s wou nd s

at a lo cal ho sp it al

, bu t no t be fo re te ll in g a po li ce de te ct iv e th at Ray Dan sb y ha d sh ot

hi m

.

Late r th e sa m e da y , Offi cer Mi ke St eg al l cam e up on Ray Dan sb y , who sa id

,

“ I’m Ray Dan sb y , ya’ ll are lo ok in g fo r m e.” St eg al l as ke d Dan sb y whet he r he was

carr y in g an y gu ns , an d Dan sb y an swe red th at he ha d th ro wn th em away. St eg al l th en

to ok Dan sb y to th e po li ce st at io n, whe re Lieu te na nt Mi ke Hil l ad vi se d hi m of hi s rig ht s. Dan sb y st at ed th at he ha d left th e sc en e wit h two gu ns , a .32 rev ol ve r an d a

.38 rev ol ve r, bu t ha d di sp os ed of th em whe re th e po li ce woul d ne ve r fin d th em

. By

Dan sb y ’s a c c o u nt of th e da y ’s ev en ts

, he ha d arm ed hi m se lf be fo re tra ve li ng to

Bren da ’s ho m e be cau se he kn ew bo th sh e an d Kim bl e ha d h a n d g u n s

. Dan sb y

ex pl ai ne d th at he ha d en te red th e fro nt do or to Bren da ’s ho m e to fin d Kim bl e ho ld in g

a ha nd gu n in hi s rig ht ha nd “ po in te d do wn,” an d Dan sb y st at ed th at aft er an arg um en t

en su ed

, “ I jus t pu ll ed m

y gu n an d st art ed sh oo ti ng .” Afte r m ak in g th es e st at em en ts

, Dan sb y su bm it te d to a gu ns ho t res id ue te st an d si gn ed a writ te n rig ht s waiv er fo rm , bu t h e d ecl in ed to pro vi de a ta pe -rec or de d s ta te m en t.

At tri al

, pr os ecu to rs pr es en te d se ve ra l p i e c e s of ev id en ce be y on d th e

ey ewit ne ss te st im on y of Ju st in Dan sb y an d Greg Ri g g i n s

. Th e au to ps y rev eal ed

gu ns ho t wou nd s ne ar Bren da ’s le ft ear an d on he r up pe r ch es t; si m il ar wou nd s were

fo un d on Kim

bl e’s ch es t, rig ht arm , an d le ft up pe r ba ck

, be h i n d hi s le ft ear, an d

su pe rfi ci al wou nd s were pr es en t on hi s le ft fla nk

. The jury al so he ard te st im on y th at

Dan sb y was sc he du le d to ap pe ar in co ur t on ch arg es of s e c o n d

- d e g ree as sa ul t an d

co nt em pt of c ou rt a t 9 :0 0 a .m . on th e d ay of t he m ur de rs , a nd th at st at e pr os ecu to rs

br ou gh t th es e ch arg es aft er Bren da ha d pr ov id ed th em wit h a si gn ed affi da vi t al le gi ng

th at Dans by had ass au lt ed he r.

-3

-Als o te st ifyin g fo r th e pr os ecu ti on was Dan sb y ’s jail cel lm at e Larry McDu ffi e,

th e bo y fri en d of Dan sb y ’s ha lf- si st er. McDu ffi e sa id Dan sb y ad m it te d in jail th at he

ha d m ur de red Kim

bl e an d Bren da

. Acco rd in g to McDu ffi e, Dan sb y to ld hi m he was

“ jus t gl ad ” th at Bren da was d e a d

. M cDu ffi e al so te st ifi ed th at in res po ns e to

Bren da ’s pl eas fo r m ercy, Dan sb y an swe red

, “ well b-

--- y ou do ne f----

- up cau se I'm

no t g on na lea ve y ou ou t h ere i n t he se st reet s wh en I do ne ki ll ed th is m an in si de .”

An Ark an sa s jury co nv ic te d Dan sb y of t wo co un ts of c ap it al m ur de r on Ju ne

11

, 19 93

, an d se nt en ced hi m to de at h by le th al in jecti on on b o th co un ts

. The

Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t affi rm ed th e co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. Dan sb y , 89 3 S.W .2d

at 33 1. Dan sb y pe ti ti on ed fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f un de r Ark an sa s Ru le of Cri m in al

Pro ced ur e 37

, cl ai m in g in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of cou ns el

. The tri al co ur t de ni ed th e

pe ti ti on , an d th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t affi rm ed

. Dan sb y v. St at e , 84 S.W .3d 85 7
(Ark . 20 02 ).

Pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 22 5 4

, D a n s b y f il ed a pe ti ti on fo r a writ of ha be as

c o r p u s i n th e di st ric t co ur t. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed rel ie f on al l cl ai m s a n d

di sm is se d th e pe ti ti on

. The co ur t th en de ni ed Dan sb y ’s m ot io n to al te r or am en d th e jud gm en t. Dan sb y so ug ht a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y , an d th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d

a cert ifi cat e on th ree c la im s: th at Dan sb y is act ua ll y in no cen t of th e m ur de rs of

Bren da an d Kim

bl e, th at im

pr op er te st im on y at tri al ab out D ansb y ’s po st arre st si le nc e

vi ol at ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, an d th at th e ev id en ce of fere d at tri al was ins uffic ie nt

to es ta bl i s h pr em ed it at io n an d de li be rat io n. An ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l of th is co ur t

ex pa nd ed th e c e r t ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y to in cl ud e Dan sb y ’s cl ai m s th at th e St at e

fai le d to di sc lo se m at eri al

, ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce co nc ern in g wit ne ss Larry McDu ffi e,

an d th at th e tri al co ur t im pe rm is si bl y li m it ed im

pe ach m en t of McDu ffi e at tri al in

vi ol at io n o f Dan sb y ’s rig ht s u nd er t he Co nf ro nt at io n C la us e.

-4

-II.

A.

Dan sb y ’s br oa de st cl ai m (Cl ai m I of th e se co nd am en de d pe ti ti on ) is th at ne w

ev id en ce di sc ov ered aft er tri al sh ows th at he is act ua ll y in no cen t of m ur de r. On th at

ba si s, he argu es th at th e co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e v io la te hi s rig ht s un de r th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t. Dan sb y sa y s th e ne w ev id en ce— in cl ud in g do cu m e n t s a l le ge dl y

wit hh el d by th e St at e an d a st at em en t in whi ch pr os ec u t i o n wit ne ss McDu ffi e

pu rp or te dl y reca nt s hi s tri al te st im on y —wo ul d al lo w hi m to im pe ach McDu ffi e’s

cred ib il it y an d es ta bl i s h t h a t Dan sb y act ed in la wfu l se lf- de fen se whe n he ki ll ed

Bren da Dans by and Kim

bl e.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s no t de ci de d whe th er a pe rs ua si ve d e m on st rat io n of

act ua l in no cen ce aft er tri al wou ld ren de r un co ns ti tu ti on al a co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce

th at is ot he rwis e free of co ns ti tu ti on al erro r. Se e Hou se v. Bell

, 54 7 U.S. 51 8, 55 4- 55
(2 00 6)

. The Co ur t ha s es ta bl is he d, ho wev er, th at th e th res ho l d f o r an y su ch cl ai m , if it were reco gn iz ed

, wou ld be “ ex tra or di na ril y hi gh .” Her re ra v. Co ll in s , 50 6 U.S.

39 0, 41 7 (1 99 3)

. The th res ho ld

, if it ex is ts

, wou ld req ui re “ m or e co nv in ci ng pr oo f”

t h a n th e “ ga te way ” st an da rd th at al lo ws fo r co ns id erat io n of ot he rwis e de fau lt e d

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s up on a sh owi ng of a ct ua l i nn oc en ce. Hou se , 54 7 U.S. at 55 5;

se e Sc hl up v. Delo

, 51 3 U.S. 29 8, 31 5 (1 99 5)

. Thu s, on a free st an di ng cl ai m of act ua l

in no cen ce, it is no t su ffi ci en t th at a pe ti ti on er sh ows ev en th at it is “ m or e li ke ly th an

no t th at no reas on ab le juro r wou ld ha ve fo un d pe ti ti on er gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t.” Id

. at 32 7

. Th e “ ex tra or di na ril y hi gh ” th res ho ld

, if reco gn iz ed

, wou ld be

ev en hi gh er. Hou se , 54 7 U.S. at 55 5. 1

In Cl ay to n v. Rop er , 5 15 F.3 d 78 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), a pa ne l of th is co ur t sa id 1

th a t b e cau se th e ha be as pe ti ti on er co ul d no t po in t to an in de pe nd en t co ns ti tu ti on al

vi ol at io n in hi s st at e cri m in al pr oc eed in g, th e fed eral co ur t was “ wit ho ut juri sd ic ti on ”

to co ns id er hi s c l a i m of act ua l in no cen ce. W e are un su re why th e Cl ay to n pa ne l

-5

-In it s or de r de nyin g rel ie f, th e di st ric t co ur t tre at ed th is cl ai m as a ch al le ng e to

th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce. W he n Dan sb y arg ue d in a m ot io n to al te r or am en d

th e jud gm en t th at th e co ur t m is co ns tru ed hi s cl ai m , th e co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at if it ha d

reac he d a free st an di ng act ua l in no cen ce c l a i m on th e m eri ts

, th en th e cl ai m wou ld

ha ve fai le d. The co ur t reas on ed th at th e on ly ev id en ce pr of fere d in su pp or t of act ua l

in no cen ce was im

pe ach m en t ev id en ce reg ard in g pr os ecu ti on wit ne ss McDu ffi e, an d

th at a jury co ul d ha ve be li ev ed McDu ffi e ev en wit h th e ne w ev id en ce. The co ur t al so

sa id th at th e ne w ev id en ce, at m os t, m ig ht ha ve est ab li sh ed reas on ab le do ub t, bu t it

co ul d no t sh ow th at no reas on ab le juro r wou ld ha ve fo un d Dan sb y gu il ty. The re was

am pl e ot he r ev id en ce th at ne ga te d Dan sb y ’s cl ai m of se lf-de fen se , th e co ur t ob se rv ed

,

an d it wou ld no t ha ve be en un reas on ab le fo r a juro r to reject Dan sb y ’s de fen se ev en

wit ho ut McDu ffi e’s te st im on y

.

We

, to o, co nc lu de th at Dan sb y ’s pr of fere d ev id en ce do es no t m eet t h e

ex tra or di na ril y hi gh th res ho ld th at m ig ht su pp or t rel ie f ba se d on a sh owi ng of act ua l

in no cen ce. As the di st ric t cou rt ob se rv ed

, m uc h of the ne w ev id en ce is des ig ne d to

un de rm in e th e cred ib il it y of pr os ecu ti on wit ne ss McDu ffi e. Latt er-d ay im pe ach m en t

ev id en ce, ho wev er, “ wil l se ld om , if ev er,” m ak e a cl ear an d co nv in ci ng cas e th at no

reas on ab le jury co ul d b el ie ve th e co re o f th e wit ne ss ’s acco un t. Sa wye r v. Whi tl ey , 50 5 U.S. 33 3, 34 9 ( 1 9 9 2)

. Here, m or eo ve r, we ag ree wit h th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e

Co ur t th at th ere was su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce ap art fro m McDu ffi e’s te st im on y th at

pe rm it te d a jury to in fer th at Dan sb y ki ll ed th e vi ct im s in a pr e med it at ed an d

de li be rat e m an ne r. Dan sb y , 89 3 S.W .2d at 33 6. The al le ge d ne w ev id en ce ci te d by

Dan sb y wit h reg ard to wit ne ss es ot he r th an McDu ffi e, App

. A16 -A2 0, d oe s no t

co mp e l a co nc lu si on th at Dan sb y act ed in la wfu l se lf- de fen se

. So m e of th es e fact s

m ig ht be d is be li ev ed or di sc ou nt ed by a reas on ab le juro r; ot he rs can be reco nc il ed

reas o n a b l y w i t h th e pr os ecu ti on ’s t he or y of th e cas e. Dan sb y ’s s ub m is si on of ne w

th ou gh t it la ck ed juri sd ic ti on , so we fo ll ow th e ap pr oa ch of Her re ra , 50 6 U.S. at 41 7-

19 , in ad dr es si ng Dans by’ s cl ai m

.

-6

-ev id en ce wo ul d no t m eet an ex tra or di na ril y hi gh th res ho ld fo r pr oo f of in no cen ce.

The di st ric t co ur t t hu s d id no t er r in reject in g t hi s cl ai m wit ho ut a he ari ng

.

B.

Dan sb y al so co nt en ds th at th e ev id en ce at tri al was in su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at he

m ur de red Bren da an d Ro nn ie Kim bl e wit h pr em ed it at io n an d de li be rat io n. Thi s is

Cl ai m XIV of th e se co nd am en de d pe ti ti on

. Dan sb y rai se d a ch al le ng e to th e

su ffi c i e n c y of ev id en ce on di rect ap pe al , a nd th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t reject ed

it

. The Ark an sa s co ur t sa id “ [t]he te st fo r de te rm in in g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce

is whe th er th ere is su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce to su pp or t th e ve rd ic t,” 89 3 S.W .2d at 33 5,

an d ul ti m at el y co nc lu de d th at th e ev id en ce of pr em ed it at io n an d de li be r a t i o n w as

“ ov erwh el m in g.” Id

. at 33 6. Where th e st at e co ur t has ad jud ic at ed a co ns ti tu ti on al

cl ai m on th e m eri ts

, a pe ti ti on er m us t de m on st rat e th at th e st at e co ur t’s de ci si on was

“ co nt rary to

, or in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d Fed eral

la w.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ).

Dan sb y arg ue s for th e fir st ti m e o n a pp eal th at § 2 25 4( d) do es no t ap pl y . He

co nt en ds th at th e Ark an sa s co ur t di d no t ad jud ic at e hi s co ns ti tu ti on al c l a i m o n t he

mer it s, bu t in st ead res ol ve d th e su ffi ci en cy -o f-ev id en ce co nt en ti on on st at e-l a w

gr ou nd s on ly. He po in ts ou t th at th e st at e co ur t ap pl ie d a “s u b s ta nt ia l ev id en ce”

st an da rd

, whi ch th is co ur t on ce sa id is “ arg ua bl y di ffer en t th an th e du e-p ro ces s

st an da rd en un ci a t e d ” i n J ac ks on v. Vir

gi ni a , 44 3 U.S. 30 7 (1 97 9)

. Se e Na nc e v.

No rr is

, 39 2 F.3 d 28 4, 28 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Ja cks on he ld th at th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se

fo rb id s a co nv ic ti on whe n “ no rat io na l tri er of fact co ul d ha ve fo un d pr oo f of gu il t

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” 4 43 U.S. at 3 24

.

W e be li ev e th at Dan sb y ’s co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m was ad jud ic at ed on th e m eri ts

,

an d th at th e de fere nt ia l st an da rd of § 22 54 (d ) ap pl ie s. Unl ik e Na nc e v. No rr is

, whe re

th e st at e co ur t “ sp eci fic al ly dis cl ai m [ed ] ad dr es si ng co ns ti tu ti on al arg um en ts ,” 39 2

-7

-F.3 d at 28 9, th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t di d no su ch th in g in Dan sb y ’s di rect ap pe al

.

In pr io r de ci si on s, th e Ark an sa s co ur t ha s ex pl ai ne d it s vi ew th at th e s u b s ta nt ia lev id en ce s ta nd ard ap pl ie d i n Ark an sa s ca se s i s co ns is te nt wit h Ja cks on :

The su bs ta nt ia l-e vi de n c e st an da rd

, whi le no t ex pl ic it ly reci ti ng th e

st an da rd fro m Ja cks on wor d fo r wor d, req ui res th at ev id en ce su pp or ti ng

a co nv ic ti on m

us t co m pe l re as on ab le m in ds to a co nc lu si on , a nd fo rce

or in du ce th e m in d to pa ss be y on d su sp ic io n or co njec tu re, an d, th ereb y ,

en su re s th at t h e e v i d en ce wa s co nv in ci ng to a po in t th at an y ra ti on al fa ct -fi nd er

co ul d h av e fo un d g ui lt

be yo nd a r ea so na bl e d

ou bt

.

W il li ams v. St at e , 91 S.W .3d 54

, 61 (Ark

. 20 02 ) (em ph as is ad de d) (in te rn al ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

. The re is th us no reas on to be li ev e th at th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e C o ur t in

Dan sb y ’s di rect ap pe al ad jud ic at ed on ly a st at e-l aw cl ai m whi le l e a v i ng th e

co ns ti tu ti on al du e pr oc es s cl ai m un ad dr es se d. The co ur t ad jud ic at ed th e two cl ai m s

to ge th er.

Viewi ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e St at e, th e st a t e co ur t

reas on ed as f

ol lo ws:

Alt ho u g h th e te st im on y is at va ria nc e am on g di ffer en t wit ne ss es as to
th e ex act se qu en ce of ev en ts du rin g th e sh oo ti ng s, th ere was m uc h sa id

as to th e weap on s us ed

, an d as to th e na tu re, ex te nt

, an d lo cat io n of Ms

. Dan sb y ’s and Mr. Kim

bl e’s wou nd s. With refe ren ce t o t he sh ot s fi red

in to Bren da

, Dr. Pere tt i te st ifi ed th at he lo cat ed gu ns ho t wou nd s ne ar th e le ft ear an d up pe r ch es t of he r bo dy. Greg Ri gg in s, an ey e wit ne ss to

Bren da ’s m

ur de r, te st ifi ed as to Ray’ s he si ta ti on of se ve ral se co nd s be fo re h e fi red th e fi na l s ho t i nt o B ren da ’s h ead

. In ob se rv an ce of th e

wou nd s to Ro nn ie ’s bo dy, Dr. Pere tt i te st ifi ed th at Ro nn ie su st ai ne d

wou nd s to th e le ft ear, ch es t, le f t up pe r ba ck , a nd rig ht arm , a s well as

two su pe rfi ci al wou nd s to th e le ft fla nk

. Part ic ul arl y , it was Dr. Pere tt i’s

op in io n th at th e wou nd to Ro nn ie ’s ba ck oc cu rred whe n he was

“ pr ob ab ly be nt ov er.” Ray’ s so n Ju st in

, an o t h er ey e wit ne ss , te st ifi ed

-8

-th at he watc he d as hi s fat he r ki ck ed Ro nn ie twi ce, an d th at he he ard hi s

fat he r sa y so m et hi ng aft er sho ot in g hi m

. In li gh t of th is te st im on y , th e jury co ul d ha ve eas il y in ferr ed th at Dan sb y fir ed m ul ti pl e sh ot s in to bo th

vi ct im s i n a pre m ed it at ed an d d el ib erat ed m an ne r.

Dan sb y , 89 3 S.W .2d at 33 6. Afte r co ns id eri ng Larry McDu ffi e’s t es ti m on y th at

Dan sb y ad m it te d to pl an ni ng th e m ur de rs , th e c o u rt vi ewed th e ev id en ce as

“ ov erwh el m in g.” Id

.

W e co nc lu de th at th e de ci s i o n of th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t was no t

co nt rary to

, or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, Ja cks on

. It is no t ne ces sa ry fo r th e

st at e co ur t to ci te th e rel ev an t Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t

, se e Ear ly v. Pac ker

, 53 7

U.S. 3, 8 (2 00 2) (p er cu ria m ), so lo ng as th e de ci si on sa ti s f i e s th e cri te ria of

§ 22 54 (d ). The Ark an sa s co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e ev id en ce was “ of su ffi ci en t fo rce

an d ch arac te r t o co m

pe l reas on ab le m in ds to reac h a co nc lu si on an d pa ss be y on d

su sp ic io n a n d c o n

je ct ur e.” Dan sb

y , 89 3 S.W .2d at 33 6. Thi s was no t an

un reas on ab le way fo r a st at e co ur t to en su re th at a rat io na l tri er of fact co ul d ha ve

fo un d th e req ui si te el em en ts be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. The ev id en ce he re su rp as sed

th e co ns ti tu ti on al th res ho ld wit h ro om to sp are. The di st ric t cou rt pro pe rly reject ed

Dan sb y ’s du e p ro ces s cl ai m ba se d o n s uf

fic ie nc y of t he ev id en ce.

C.

Dan sb y ne xt ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of rel ie f on hi s cl ai m (Cl ai m VI)

th at im pr op er te st im on y an d c om m en t o n h is po st arre st si le nc e vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to

du e pr oc es s un de r th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. The cl ai m ari se s fro m th e fo ll owi ng

te st im on y at t ria l b y

Lieu te na nt Mi ke Hil l o f th e El Do rad o P ol ic e Dep art m en t.

COUNSEL FOR STATE: Did [Dan sb y ] ap pe ar to un de rs ta nd hi s rig ht s

as y ou ve rb al ly adv is ed

. . .

-9

-W ITNESS: Yes

.

COUNSEL FOR STATE: . . . him of t he m ?

W ITNESS: Yes , he d id

.

COUNSEL F O R S TATE: And di d y ou ha ve a co nv ers at io n wit h hi m ab ou t t he se ev en ts at a ll ?

W ITNESS: Yes

, aft er I in fo rm ed hi m , of co ur se , th at he ha d th e rig ht to

rem ai n si le nt

. Anythi ng he sa id co ul d be us ed ag ai ns t hi m in a co ur t of

la w, a n d t h a t, y ou kn ow, if he wan te d a la wy er pr es en t du rin g

qu es ti on in g he co ul d ha ve on e. And I as ke d hi m if he un de rs to od th at at

an y ti m e, y ou kn ow, th at he di dn ’t wis h to ta lk an y lo ng er he di dn ’t ha ve

to

.

I sa i d o r I as ke d hi m it ’s ve ry im po rta nt th at we fin d th is gu n. I

sa id an y on e co ul d pi ck th is gu n up

. W ha t di d y ou do wit h it ? At t ha t

po in t he be ga n to te ll m e th at he le ft th e sc en e wit h two gu ns , a .32 an d

a .38

, bo th rev ol ve rs

. And th at he th rew th em away whe re we wou ld

ne ve r fi nd ‘ em

an d h e was n’t wo rri ed ab ou t an y bo dy fin di ng ‘ em

.

Afte r ob ta in in g th e gu ns ho t res id ue ki t, I sa t do wn at m y de sk an d

ag ai n in fo rm ed hi m of hi s rig ht s. Thi s ti m e I read to hi m hi s rig ht s fro m th e st an da rd waiv er fo rm th at we us e whi ch he ag ai n ack no wled ge d th at
he un de rs to od an d s ig ne d t he for m

.

COUNSEL FOR STATE: I’ll sh ow y ou wha t’s be en m ark ed pr ev io us ly

as St at e’s Exh ib it No. 2, an d as k y ou if y ou can id en ti f y t h i s , p l eas e [h an di ng to wit ne ss ].

W ITNESS: Yes

, th is is th e fo rm th at I read to Ray Dan sb y th at m or ni ng

. It’s no te d he re at th e to p 9: 00 a.m ., at th e bo tt om 9: 14 a.m

. whi ch wou ld

ha ve be en th e ti m e th at I read di rect ly to hi m fro m th e fo rm an d th at he

si gn ed it

.

-1 0-COUNSEL FOR S TA TE: Oka y

. And th en at so me po in t di d he al so de cl in e to ta lk ?

W ITNESS: Y

es , at 9: . . .

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT : Ob jecti on

.

W ITNESS: . . . 21 a .m.

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT : Ob jecti on

.

THE COURT: W ha t’s y ou r ob jecti on ?

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT : M ay we ap pr oa ch ?

Tria l R. 8 03 -0 4 (e m

ph as es ad de d)

.

At a be nc h co nf

eren ce, Dan sb y ’s co unsel ob jecte d th at it was im

pe rm is si bl e fo r

Hil l to refe r to Dan sb y ’s in vo cat io n of hi s rig ht to rem ai n si le nt

. Sh e m ov ed fo r a

m is tri al

. The tri al co ur t di d no t he ar Hil l “ sa y an y th in g ab ou t an yb o d y in vo ki ng

an y th in g,” an d de ni ed th e m ot io n fo r m is tri al

. Id

. at 8 0 5

. The co ur t di rect ed th e

pr os ecu ti on t o a d mo n is h Hil l th at he sh ou ld no t “ m ak e an y refe ren ce or co m m en t

ab ou t an y rig ht s be in g in vo ke d or ab ou t th e de fen da nt refu si ng to an swe r qu es ti on s.”

Id

. at 80 8. And th e co ur t di rect ed th e pr os ecu ti on to red act an ad vi ce-o f-ri gh ts fo rm

si gn ed by Dan sb y to rem ov e a no t a t i o n a b o ut hi s in vo cat io n of th e rig ht to rem ai n

si le nt

. Id

. at 80 8. Th e c o u r t th en in qu ire d whe th er Dan sb y wan te d th e co ur t to

ad m on is h th e jury “

jus t in cas e so m et hi ng sl ip pe d th ro ug h,” bu t Dan sb y sa id th ro ug h

co un se l t ha t h e d id no t wan t an ad m on is hm en t. Id

. at 80 8- 09

.

On di rect ap pe al

, Dan sb y arg ue d th at Hil l’s an swe r th at “ Yes

, ” D a ns by di d

de cl i n e to ta lk at so m e po in t du rin g th e in te rv ie w, vi ol at ed Dan sb y ’s du e pr oc es s rig ht s as co ns tru ed in Doy le v. Ohi o , 42 6 U.S. 61 0 (1 97 6)

. Doy le he ld th at whe n an

-1 1-a c c u s ed in vo ke s hi s rig ht to rem ai n si le nt aft er rece iv in g ad vi ce ab ou t hi s rig h t s

pu rs ua nt to Mir an da v. Ari zo na , 38 4 U.S. 43 6 (1 96 6)

, th e Co ns ti tu ti on fo rb id s th e

pr os ecu ti on to us e th e accu se d’s si le nc e to im pe ach hi s te st im on y at a la te r tri al

. 42 6

U

. S

. at 61 9. The Co ur t reas on ed th at th e Mir an da warn in gs carr y an im pl ic i t

as s u r a n c e th at “ si le nc e wil l carr y no pe na lt y ,” an d th at “ it wou ld be fu nd am en ta ll y

un fai r an d a de pr iv at io n of du e pr oc es s to al lo w th e arre st ed pe r s o n ’s s il en ce to be

us ed to im

pe ach an ex pl an at io n s ub se qu en tl y off ered at t ria l.” Id

. at 6 18

.

The Arka ns as Su pr em e Co ur t re jecte d Dan sb y ’s cla im . The co ur t co nc lu de d

th at “ th e te st im on y el ic it ed fro m Lieu te na nt Hil l was no t a co m m en t on Dan sb y ’s
rig ht to rem ai n si le nt ; rat he r, it m erel y ex pl ai ne d to th e jury why th ere was no t a ta pe d

st at em en t.” 89 3 S.W .2d at 34 0- 41

. Earl ie r in th e tri al

, Mi ke St eg al l, an ot he r po li ce

of fic er who pa rti ci pa te d in Dan sb y ’s in te rro ga ti on , te st ifi ed th at “ aft er [Dan sb y ] ha d

gi ve n us hi s st at em en t

. . . Lieu te na nt Hil l ad vi se d hi m th at we ne ed ed to tu rn th e ta pe

reco rd er on to reco rd hi s st at em en t. At whi ch po in t Mr. Dan sb y in vo ke d hi s rig ht s

an d st at ed th at he di dn ’t wan t to sa y an y th in g els e wit ho ut a la wy er.” Tria l R. 67 6.

The Ark an sa s co ur t ev id en tl y be li ev ed th at Hil l’s an swe r, li ke St eg al l’s te st im on y ,

e x p l a i n e d why th ere was no reco rd in g of Dan sb y ’s ad m is si on s, an d th at su c h

te st im on y di d n ot vi ol at e Dan sb y ’s du e p ro ces s ri gh ts

.

Bec au se th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t res ol ve d th e Doy le cl ai m on th e m eri ts

, Dan sb y is en ti tl ed to rel ie f o n l y i f t he st at e co ur t’s de ci si on was “ co nt rary to

, or

in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl i s he d Fed eral la w, as

de te rm in ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d St at es .” 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). The

di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at he co ul d no t mee t t h a t st an da rd

. The co ur t ru le d

al te rn at iv el y

th at an y erro r was ha rm le ss

.

Dan sb y co nt en ds th at th e Ark an sa s co ur t’s de ci s io n was an un reas on ab le

ap pl ic at io n of D o

yl e an d W

ai nw ri gh t v. Gre en

fi el d

, 47 4 U.S. 28 4 (1 98 6)

. Dan sb y

ci te s Gre en

fi el d ’s ho ld in g th a t t h e pr os ecu ti on co ul d no t us e an accu se d’s po st

-

-1 2-Mir an da warn in g si le nc e to ov erco m e a de fen da n t ’s pl ea of in sa ni ty, be cau se th e

im pl ic it pr om is e, br each

, an d co ns eq ue nt pe na lt y is th e sa m e in th at si tu at io n as whe n

th e pr os ecu ti on se ek s to us e si le nc e to im pe ach th e accu se d’s te st im on y at tri al

. 47 4

U.S. at 29 2. Dan sb y arg ue s th at th e St at e im pe rm is si bl y us ed hi s si le nc e to reb ut an

in fere nc e th at Lieu te nt an t Hil l was fab ric at in g Dan sb y ’s un reco rd ed st at em en t ab ou t

gu ns , an d th at th e st at e co ur t un reas on ab ly ap pl ie d Gre en fi el d an d D o

y l e by

pe rm it ti ng Hil l’s t es ti m on y th at Dans by inv ok ed hi s ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t.

Thi s co ur t ha s co nc lu de d tha t not ev ery refe ren ce to an accu se d’s po st

- Mir an da

warn in g si le nc e vi ol at es du e pr oc es s. In Mat he ni a v. Delo

, 9 7 5 F

. 2 d 4 4 4 (8 th Ci r.

19 92 ), a la w en fo rcem en t of fic er te st ifi ed th at he ad vi se d an arre st ee of hi s rig ht s, bu t

th at th e arre st ee di d no t m ak e a st at em en t at th e ti m e of hi s arre st

. Oth er ev id en ce

s h o w e d th at th e arre st ee m ad e a vi de ot ap ed st at em en t two week s la te r. Thi s co ur t,

ag reei ng wit h th e st at e co ur t in th at cas e, he ld t h a t t h e of fic er’s te st im on y was

“ ‘m erel y pr el im in ary to th e ad m is si on in to ev id en ce o f [ t h e arre st ee’s] v id eo -ta pe d

st at em en t.’” Id

. at 45 2 (q uo ti ng St at e v. Mat he ni a , 70 2 S.W .2d 84 0, 84 2 (Mo

. 19 86 )).

Evi de nc e th at th e accu se d di d no t m ak e a st at e ment at th e ti m e of arre st “ m erel y crystal iz ed wha t was al read y su gg es te d by th e fact th at ap pe ll an t ul ti m at el y di d m ak e

a st at em en t” at a la te r da te

. St at e v. Mat he ni a , 70 2 S.W .2d at 84 2; cf

. Gre er v. Mil le r , 4 8 3 U

. S

. 75 6, 76 3 (1 98 7) (“ [T]he ho ld in g of Doy le is th at th e Due Pro ces s Cl au s e

ba rs th e us e fo r im

pe ach m en t pu rp os es of a de fen da nt ’s po st arre st si le nc e.”) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s no t ad dr es se d a cas e li ke Mat he ni a

. The li ne be twee n

pe rm is si bl e refe ren ces to po st arre st si le nc e fo r ex pl an at or y pu rp os es an d

im pe rm is si bl e br each es of th e im pl ie d Mir an da

- warn in g pr om is e, th eref or e, m us t

em erg e fro m cas e-b y -cas e ap pl ic at io ns of Doy le ov er a pe ri o d o f t i me. In th e

m ean ti m e, st at e co ur ts ha ve so m e le eway to reac h reas on ab le jud gm en ts in th is area

. Se e Y ar bo ro ug h v. Alva ra do

, 54 1 U.S. 65 2, 66 3- 64 (2 00 4)

. It wa s no t an

un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of Su pr e me Co ur t pr eced en t fo r th e Ark an sa s co ur t to

-1 3-co nc lu de th at Hil l’s an swe r in th is cas e was pe rm is si bl e. Offi cer St eg al l al read y ha d

te st ifi ed wit ho ut ob

jecti on th at th e of

fic ers at te m

pt ed to ta pe reco rd Dan sb y ’s

st at em en t, bu t th at Dan sb y de cl in ed to sa y an y th in g mo re. Hil l’s te st im on y th at

Dan sb y de cl in ed at so m e po in t to sp eak fu rth er co ul d reas on ab ly be vi ewed by a st at e

co ur t m erel y as an ex pl an at io n of th e ci rcu m st an ces of Dan sb y ’s in te rv ie w, no t as a

pe na lt y for in vo ki ng th e ri gh t t o re m ai n s il en t. 2

D.

Dan sb y ’s fo ur th po in t on ap pe al is th at th e di st ric t cou rt erro ne ou sl y reject ed

hi s cl ai m th at th e st at e tri al co ur t de ni ed hi s rig ht un de r th e Si xt h A men d men t to

co nf ro nt a wit ne ss ag ai ns t hi m , Larry McDu ffi e. Thi s is Cl ai m II in th e se co nd

am en de d p et it io n.

Afte r Dan sb y was arre st ed fo r m ur de r, he was in carc erat ed wit h McDu ffi e in

Uni on Co un ty, Ark an sa s. McDu ffi e was in jail aft er h is arre st on a pe nd in g fel on y

dr ug ch arg e. Befo re tri al , t he pr os ecu ti on m ov ed in li min e for an ord er t o pr ecl ud e

th e de fen se fro m “ m en ti on in g o r a t t e mp t in g to el ic it te st im on y fro m an y wit ne ss

reg ard in g th e r e a s on fo r McDu ffi e’s in carc erat io n, an d pe nd in g ch arg es or rel at ed

m at te rs .” The tri al co ur t ru le d th at ch arg es th at ha d b e e n f i l e d in th e pa st ag ai ns t

McDu ffi e th at di d no t res ul t in co nv ic ti on s “ are cl earl y in ad m is si bl e an d sh ou ld no t

be refe rred to be cau se th e wit ne ss m ay no t be im pe ach ed in th at man ne r.” Tria l R.

63 6. The co ur t pr ov id ed th at Dan sb y co ul d in qu ire whe th er McDu ffi e ha d se rv ed as

a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t fo r t h e El D o rad o po li ce de pa rtment an d whe th er he ha d

be en pa id by tha t ag en cy

for in fo rm at io n i n t he pa st

. Id

. at 24 8.

I t i s u n ne ces sa ry to co ns id er th e di st ric t co ur t’s al te rn at iv e ru li ng th at an y 2

D o y l e erro r was ha rm le ss , b ut we no te th at Hil l’s di sp ut ed an swe r is cu m ul at i v e o f

Offi cer St eg al l’s te st im on y earl ie r in th e tri al th at Dan sb y “ in vo k e d hi s rig ht s an d

st at ed th at he di dn ’t want to say anythi ng els e wit ho ut a la wy er.” Tri al R. 67 6.

-1 4-Dan sb y ’s co un se l so ug ht ad di ti on al le eway to el ic it te st im on y de si gn e d t o

sh ow McDu ffi e’s bi as

. In a m em or an du m br ie f an d at a pr et r i a l h e a r i n g , co un se l

as se rte d th at McDu ffi e ha d a hi st or y of wor ki ng as an in fo rm an t fo r th e St at e, th at he

ha d be en in an d ou t of jail th ree or fo ur ti m es in rece nt m on th s, th at th e St at e’s

tre at m en t o f pr ev io us cri m in al cas es ag ai ns t h im was i nc on si st en t wi th it s h an dl in g

of ot he r cas es , th at he was no t sa nc ti on ed fo r vi ol at in g co nd it io ns of rel eas e, an d th at

ev id en ce of th es e ev en ts wou ld sh ow McDu ffi e’s bi as to ward th e St at e. Id

. at 29 6- 97

, 63 1- 32

.

The co ur t ord ered th at Dan sb y co ul d in qu ire whe th er McDuf fie ha d recei ve d

pr om is es of le ni en cy or gu aran te es of im m un it y , bu t co ul d no t pr es en t ev id en ce ab ou t

“ ex tri ns ic m at te rs whi ch wou ld cal l up on th e jury to pe rfo rm a feat of sp ecu la ti on or

co njec tu re in or de r to rel at e it to [th e] al le ge d bi as .” Id

. at 63 7. The co ur t ru le d th at

un le ss th ere was “ di rect ev id en ce of an ag reem en t of a pr om is e of immu n i t y o r

so m et hi ng al on g th at na tu re, .

. . y ou ’re in th e real m of sp ecu la ti on an d co njec tu re.”

Id

. at 63 8. The or al ru li ng co nc lu de d as fo ll ows : “ I’m go in g to gr an t th e m ot io n in

li m in e as to arg um en t ab ou t an d st at em en t ab ou t th es e ch arg es an d th en jus t al lo w th e

m at te r to pr oc eed as to th es e o th er ar eas .” Id . at 6 40 . Duri ng cro ss -ex am in at io n o f

McDu ffi e, th e co ur t su st ai ne d an ob jecti on to de fen se co un se l’s qu es ti on ab ou t why

McDu ffi e was he ld in jail at th e ti m e of hi s st at em en t to po li ce ab ou t Dan sb y

. Id

. at

90 7. Be fo re t he cas e was su bm it te d to th e jury, Dan sb y m ad e a p ro ffer of e vi de nc e

th at he so ug ht to us e to sh ow M cDu ffi e’s al le ge d b ia s. Id

. at 96 9- 89

.

O n di rect ap pe al

, Dan sb y ch al le ng ed th e tri al co ur t’s res tri ct io ns on cro ss

ex am in at io n, arg ui ng in pa rt th at McDu ffi e’s “ pa st de a l i n g wit h la w en fo rcem en t,

in cl ud in g al l th e su rro un di ng ci rcu m st an ces of hi s pa st cri m in al reco rd an d th e

pe na lt ie s or rew a r d s he rece iv ed

, were rel ev an t to th e jury’ s co ns id erat io n of th e

te st im on y he wou ld gi ve at th e tri al .” Dan sb y ur ge d, am on g ot he r th in gs , th at th e tri al

co ur t’s rig ht to li m it te st im on y “ m us t b e w ei gh ed ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt ’s

co nf ro nt at io n ri gh ts an d fa ir t ria l rig ht s gu aran te ed by th e Si xt h Am en dm en t.” The

-1 5-Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at Dan sb y ’s pr of f e r e d e v id en ce was “ no t

rel ev an t to sh ow bi as ,” an d up he ld th e tri al co ur t’s rul in g. 89 3 S.W .2d at 33 9. The

st at e su pr em e c o u r t o p i ne d th at Dan sb y ha d no t pr of fere d di rect ev id en ce of an

ag reem en t or pr om is e of im m un it y , an d th at a jury co ul d no t ha ve m ad e a co nn ect io n

be twee n McDu ffi e’s arre st s an d hi s al le ge d b i a s in th e Dan sb y tri al wit ho ut

sp ecu la ti on or c on

jectu re. Id

.

In hi s fed eral ha be as pe ti ti on , Da ns by ch al le ng ed th e tri a l c o u r t ’s ru li ng as a

vi ol at io n of hi s rig ht s un d e r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t. Dan sb y co m pl ai ne d th at th e

ru li ng un co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ecl ud ed hi m f r o m c ro ss -ex am in in g McDu ffi e an d fro m

in tro du ci ng ex tri ns ic ev id en ce to ex po se hi s bi as an d m ot iv e to fab ric at e. But cf

. Dri ver v. La nd er

s , 44 4 F. App ’x 93 4, 93 6 (9t h Cir. 20 11 ) (“ The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s

ne ve r he ld th at th e Co nf

ro nt at io n Cl au se req ui res , in ad di ti on to cro ss -ex am in at io n,

th e ad m is si on of ex tri ns ic ev id en ce fo r th e pu rp os e of es ta bl is hi ng a wit ne ss ’s m ot iv e

to li e.”); Bro wn v. Rua ne , 63 0 F.3 d 62

, 70 -7 1 (1 st Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ [T]he Su pr em e Co ur t’s

Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se ju r i sp ru de nc e le ft a de fen da nt ’s rig ht to in tro du ce ex tri ns ic

im pe ach m en t ev id en ce as an op en co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on .”).

The di st ric t cou rt d is m is se d t hi s cl ai m on th e gr ou nd th at it was pr oc ed ur al ly

de fau lt ed

. The co ur t co nc lu de d th a t D an sb y ne ve r pr es en te d a cl ai m of fed eral

co ns ti tu ti on al erro r in hi s di rect ap pe al to th e st at e su pr em e co ur t, an d th at th e cl ai m

was th eref

or e de fau lt ed

. Se e O’S

ul li va n v. Boe rc kel

, 52 6 U.S. 83 8, 84 8 (1 99 9)

. The

di st ric t co ur t no te d th at Dan sb y ’s br ie f on di rect ap pe al in cl ud ed on e m en ti on of th e

Si xt h Am en dm en t, bu t reas on ed th at Dan sb y fai le d to as se rt t h a t t h e tri al co ur t’s

ru li ng vi ol at ed hi s fe de ral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.

Dan sb y arg ue s th at he fai rly pr es en te d a fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al arg um en t to th e

st at e su pr em e c o u r t

, a n d w e ag ree. To ex ha us t a cl ai m pr op erl y in st at e co ur t, a

pr is on er m

us t gi ve th e st at e co ur ts a fai r op po rtu ni ty to act on th e cl ai m

. Id

. at 84 4.

A pe ti ti on er m

us t pr es en t “ ‘ bo th th e fa ct ua l an d le ga l pr em is es ’” of hi s cl ai m s to th e

-1 6-st at e co ur ts in or de r to ex ha us t th e cl ai m s pr op erl y

. Fli eg er v. Delo

, 16 F.3 d 87 8, 88 4

(8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (q uo ti ng Co x v. Lo ckh ar t

, 97 0 F.2 d 44 8, 45 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 )). The

l e g a l a sp ect of th is req ui rem en t is sa ti sf ie d if th e pe ti ti on er’s arg um en t to th e st at e

c o u rt “ refe r[s ] to a sp eci fic fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

, a pa rti cu la r co ns ti tu ti o n a l

pr ov is io n, a fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cas e , o r a st at e cas e rai si ng a pe rti ne nt fed eral

co ns ti tu ti on al is su e.” Abd ul la h v. Gro os e , 75 F.3 d 40 8, 41 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (en ba nc )

(in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

As no te d, Dan sb y ’s br ie f on di rect ap pe al to th e Ar k a n s as Su pr em e Co ur t

arg ue d th at li m it s on im pe ach m en t “ m

u s t b e weig he d ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt ’s

co nf ro nt at io n rig ht s and fai r tr ia l ri gh ts gu aran te ed by th e Si xt h Am en dm en t.” The

br ie f al so ci te d Su ll iv an v. St at e , 79 8 S.W .2d 11 0 (Ark

. Ct

. App

. 19 90 ), fo r th e

pr op os it io n th at “ [e]vi de nc e of gu aran te es of im m un it y or pr om is es of le ni en cy or an y

ot he r co ns id erat io ns are a pr op er su bjec t fo r cro ss ex am in at io n.” As au th or it y fo r th is

sa m e po in t, Su ll iv an ci te d Dela wa re v. Van Ars da ll

, 47 5 U.S. 67 3 (1 98 6)

, a de ci si on

th at ad dr es se d th e req ui rem en ts of th e fed eral Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se

. Id

. at 67 9.

Dan sb y ’s sp eci fic in vo cat io n of th e Si xt h Am en dm en t an d a st at e co ur t de ci si on th at

ap pl ie d th e fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io n, fo ll owe d by hi s as se rti on th at th e tri al

co ur t sh ou ld ha ve al lo wed hi m to at ta ck McDu ffi e’s al le ge d bi as an d pr ejud ic e in

c e r t a i n way s th at th e tri al co ur t pr oh ib it ed , wa s su ffi ci en t to gi ve th e st at e su pr em e

co ur t fai r no ti ce th at he rai se d a fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m in ad di ti on to a st at e-l aw

ev id en ti ary arg um en t. Se e Sn el l v. Lo ckh ar t

, 14 F.3 d 12 89

, 12 98 -9 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ).

Fo r th es e reas on s, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de te rm in in g th at

Dan sb y fai le d to pr es en t a Si xt h Am en dm en t cl ai m to th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t.

The pa rti es ha ve no t ad dr es se d th e ex te nt to whi ch th e fa ct ua l pr em is es of Dan sb y ’s

cu rren t fed eral cl ai m were pr es en te d to th e st at e su pr em e co ur t, so we do no t ta ke up

th at m at te r. W e va cat e th e di sm is sa l of Cl ai m II an d rem an d th e cl ai m to th e di st ric t

co ur t fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n.

-1 7-E.

The fin al cl ai m on w h i c h Dan sb y rece iv ed a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

co nc er n s al le ge d pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t. Thi s cl ai m (Cl ai m III) in vo lv es two

rel at ed al le ga ti on s: (1 ) th at th e St at e vi ol at ed th e ru le of Bra dy v. Mar yl an d

, 37 3 U.S.

83 (1 96 3)

, by wit hh ol di ng m at eri al ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce reg ard in g th e cred ib il it y of

Larry McDu ffi e, a n d ( 2) th at th e St at e vi ol at ed Dan sb y ’s rig ht to du e pr oc es s by

kn owi ng ly pe rm it ti ng McDu ffi e to te st ify fal se ly. Se e Na pu e v. Ill in oi s , 36 0 U.S. 26 4
(1 95 9)

. Dan sb y co nt en ds th at th e pr os ecu ti on co nc e a le d va rio us un writ te n

in d u c e men ts it ha d of

fere d McDu ffi e in ex ch an ge fo r hi s te st im on y

. The se

in du cem en ts in cl ud ed

, he as se rts

, a fav or ab le se nt en ci ng rec o mm en da ti on in

McDu ffi e’s pe nd in g fel on y dr ug c a se an d no ne nf or cem en t of th e co nd it io ns of hi s

pr o b a ti on

. Dan sb y al so rel ie s on a st at em en t pu rp or te dl y si gn ed by McDu ffi e in

20 05

, in whi ch he reca nt s hi s tri al te st im on y an d accu se s th e pr os ecu ti on of di rect in g

hi m to tes ti fy in a m an ne r th at he to ld th e au th or it ie s was no t t ru e.

The di st ric t cou rt di sm is se d Dans by’ s Bra dy

- Na pu e cl ai m on th e gr ou nd th at

it was pr oc ed ur al ly d efau lt ed

. In a mo t i o n to al te r or am en d th e jud gm en t, Dan sb y

co m pl ai ne d th at th e co ur t ha d rai se d th e d oc tri ne of pr oc ed ur al de fau lt su a sp on te

wit ho ut gi vi ng th e pa rti es ap pr op ria te no ti ce an d op po rtu ni ty to be he ard

. The di st ric t

co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, st at in g th at Eig ht h Ci rcu it pr eced en t au th or iz ed th e co ur t to

co ns id er de fau lt su a sp on te

, an d th at “ du e to th e in te rtwi ne of Pet it io ne r’s Cl ai m s II

an d III, t h e r e w a s ad eq ua te no ti ce of th e po ss ib il it y of pr oc ed ur al de fau lt

, if an y

no ti ce was du e.” Cl ai m

II was th e al le ge d v io la ti on of t he Co nf ro nt at io n C la us e.

A fed eral co ur t ha s di sc ret io n to ad dr es s pr oc ed ur al de fau lt in a ha be as co rp us

cas e de sp it e th e St at e’s fai lu re to pr es en t th e is su e pr op erl y

. Ki ng v. Kemn a , 26 6 F.3 d

8 1 6

, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at be fo re a co ur t may

ad dr es s su a sp on te a di ffer en t pr oc ed ur al de fen se —t im el ine ss of a ha be as peti ti on —i t

m us t gi ve th e pa rti es fai r no ti ce an d an op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t t he ir po si ti on s. Se e

-1 8-W

oo d v. Mil ya rd , 13 2 S . Ct. 1 82 6, 1 83 4 (20 12 ); Day v. McDo no ug h

, 54 7 U.S. 19 8,

21 0 (2 00 6)

. The sa m e req ui rem en ts of no ti ce an d op po rtu ni t y t o b e he ard sh ou ld

ap pl y whe n a fed eral co ur t ch oo se s to ad dr es s pr oc ed ur al de fau lt on its own in it ia ti ve

. Se e Pri et o v. Qua rt er man , 45 6 F.3 d 51 1, 51 8 (5 th Ci r. 20 06 ); Boy d v. Th omp so n , 14 7

F.3 d 11 24

, 11 28 (9 th Ci r. 1 9 9 8 )

. Th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t gi ve th e pa rti es su ch

no ti ce an d op po rtu ni ty, bu t th e S t a te as se rts th at it s res po ns e to Dan sb y ’s se co nd

am en de d p et it io n a de qu at el y rai se d t he is su e o f pr oc ed ur al de fau lt . W e d is ag ree.

The St at e res po nd ed to Cl ai m III of th e se co nd am e n d e d p e t it io n, Dan sb y ’s

cl ai m ba se d o n Bra dy an d Na

pu e , as fo ll ows :

Thi s is su e was ad dr es se d to so m e de gr ee i n t h e fir st cl ai m of bo th th e

or ig in al ha be as pe ti ti on a n d th e fir st am en de d ha be as pe ti ti on

. The

arg um en ts fro m th e pr io r two res po ns es a r e i n c or po rat ed he rei n, as if

fu ll y se t fo rth

. To th e ex te nt t h a t it was no t pr ev io us ly ad dr es se d, th e is su e was co rrec tl y de ci de d o n t he m eri ts by th e St at e Su pr em e Co ur t.
The en ti re arg um en t reg ard in g is su es de ci de d co rrec tl y on th e m eri ts by

th e st at e’s hi gh es t co u r t

, se t ou t in cl ai m I of th is res po ns e, is

in co rp or at ed he rei n a s i f fu ll y set for th

.

Res p. t o S eco nd Am . Pet . for W rit of Ha be as Co rp us 5.

The fir st cl ai m in th e or ig in al pe ti ti on an d th e fir st am en de d pe ti ti on was th at

t h e s t at e tri al co ur t’s ru li ng on cro ss -ex am in at io n of McDu ffi e vi ol at ed t h e

Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se

. I n r e s p on se to th e or ig in al pe ti ti on , th e St at e arg ue d th at

D a n s b y f a i le d to ci te an y fed eral la w or to as se rt co ns ti tu ti on al erro r in st at e

co ur t: “ Cl ai m nu m

be r on e was gr ou nd ed so le ly in st at e la w, an d fo r th at reas on is

d e f a ul te d.” Res p. to Pet

. fo r W rit of Hab eas Co rp us 5. In res po ns e to t h e

Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se cl ai m rai se d in th e fir st am en de d pe tit ion

, the St ate in co rp or at ed

it s or ig in al res po ns e an d rei te rat ed th at “ [t]hi s is su e was p r e s e n te d on st at e la w

gr ou nd s on ly to th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t.” Res p. to Fi rs t A m. P et

. fo r W rit of

Hab eas Co rp us 1.

-1 9-W e do no t un de rs ta nd ho w th e St at e’s in co rp or at io n of the se res po ns es whe n

an swe rin g Dan sb y ’s Bra dy

- Na pu e cl ai m ga ve n o t i ce of it s po si ti on th at th e Bra dy

Na pu e cl ai m was pr oc ed ur al ly de fau lt ed

. If th e Bra dy

- Na pu e cl ai m was pr oc ed ur al ly

de fau lt ed

, th e de fau lt was no t oc cas io ne d be cau se Dan sb y arg ue d on ly st at e la w whe n

ch al le ng in g th e tri al co ur t’s li m it at io n on cro ss -ex am in at io n of McDu ffi e. Lim it at io n

on cro ss -ex am in at io n is an is su e d i s t i nc t fro m whe th er th e pr os ecu ti on wit hh el d

m at eri al ex cu lpat or y ev id en ce or kn owi ng ly pr es en te d fal se te st im on y

. W e co nc lu de

, th eref or e, th at th e pa rti es were no t affo rd ed ad eq ua te no ti ce an d op po rtu ni ty to be

he ard on th e is su e of pr oc ed ur al de fau lt

, an d th e Bra d y

- Na pu e cl ai m m

us t be

rem an de d fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n.

III.

In pa pe rs fil ed aft er th is cas e was br ie fed

, arg ue d, an d su bm it te d, Dan sb y ur ge s

th is pa ne l to ex pa nd th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y to en co m pa ss fo ur m or e cl ai m s.

Th e di st ric t co ur t an d an ad m in is tra ti ve pa ne l of th is co ur t de ni ed pr ev io u s

ap pl ic at io ns on th es e cl ai m s , b ut Dan sb y co nt en ds th at in te rv en in g co ur t de ci si on s

warra nt reco ns id erat io n. Thi s pa ne l ha s au th or it y to ex pa n d a c e r ti fic at e of

ap pe al ab il it y , bu t we reex am in e th e act io n of a pr io r pa ne l wit h cau ti on

. W at ts v.

No rr is

, 35 6 F.3 d 93 7, 94 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Hav in g co ns id ered th e is su es rai se d in th e

po st arg um en t m ot io ns , we den y th e p en di ng ap pl ic at io ns to ex pa nd th e cer ti fic at e.

A.

Dan sb y as ks us to ex pa nd th e cert ifi cat e to en co m pa ss Cl ai m XVIII, whi ch

as se rts th at th e jury arb it rari ly refu se d to co ns id er m it ig at in g ev id en ce in vi ol at io n of

th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at t h e A r k a n s as Su pr em e

Co ur t reject ed th is cl ai m on th e m eri ts , a nd th at th e de ci si on was no t co nt rary t o or

an un reas on ab l e ap pl ic at io n of cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral la w. Se e 28 U.S.C.

§ 22 54 (d ). W e do no t th in k th e st at e su pr em e co ur t a dju di cat ed th e Eig ht h

-2 0-Am en dm en t cl ai m , b ut Dan sb y ha s no t m ad e a su b s t a nt ia l sh owi ng of a de ni al of a

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

. Se e id

. § 2 25 3( c)(2 ).

Dan sb y ’s co nt en ti on is ba se d on th e jury’ s de ci si on to m ark Opt io n D on Fo rm

2 of th e jury fo rm s. Fo rm 2 was en ti tl ed “ Mi ti ga ti ng Ci rcu m st an ces .” Opt io n D read :

“ The re was no ev id en ce of an y m i t i g a t i n g c irc um st an ce.” Opt io n A pe rm it te d th e jury to li st m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces th at it un an im ou sl y fo un d pr ob ab ly ex is te d at th e

ti m e of th e m

ur de r ; O p t i o n B al lo wed th e jury to li st m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces th at

on e or m or e m em

be rs of th e jury be li ev ed pr ob ab ly ex is te d, bu t on whi ch th e jury was

no t un an im ou s; an d Opt io n C ap pl ie d if th e jury fo un d th at “ th ere was evi de nc e of ”

an y of si x en um erat ed m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces , or an y ot he r t h a t th e jury m ig ht

id en ti fy

, bu t th e jury un an im ou sl y ag reed th at th e ci rcu m st an ces di d no t exi st at th e

ti m e o f th e m

ur de r.

Dan sb y di rect s ou r at te nt io n to W il li ams v. St at e , No. CR9 3- 98 8, 20 11 W L

62 75 53 6 (Ark

. Dec. 15

, 20 11 ), whe re th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at a jury’ s

de ci si on to ch eck Opt io n D of Fo rm 2 in a cap it al cas e was rev ers ib le erro r, be cau se

th e de fen da nt ha d pr es en te d “ un reb ut te d ev id en ce in m it ig at io n.” Id

. at *5

. The co ur t

reas on ed th at if th e jury di d no t be li ev e th at th e ev id en ce pr es en te d “ ro se to th e le ve l

of m it ig at in g evi de nc e,” th en it sh ou ld ha ve m ark ed Opt io n C of Fo rm 2. Id

. at *6

. App lying it s pr eced en t in And er so n v. St at e , 16 3 S.W .3d 33 3 (Ark. 20 04 ), th e co ur t

he ld th at th e jury’ s co m

pl et io n of Fo rm 2 m ean t th at “ th e jury e li m in at ed fro m it s

co n s i d e r at io n al l ev id en ce pr es en te d of m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces an d se nt en ced

W il li am s to de at h so le ly ba se d on th e ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ce, whi ch is rev ers ib le

erro r.” W il li ams , 20 11 W L 62 75 53 6, at *6

.

W e no te fir st th at whi le W il li ams was de ci de d aft er a pa ne l of th is co ur t ru le d

o n D a n s by’ s ap pl ic at io n to ex pa nd th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y , W il li am s

an no un ced no ne w ru le of la w. W il li ams is an un pu bl is he d de ci si on th at ap pl ie d th e

Ark an sa s co ur t’s 2 00 4 d eci si on in And er so n

.

-2 1-Rev ie win g th e m at te r no ne th el es s, and as su m in g fo r th e sa ke of a na lysis th at

th e cl ai m is no t pr oc ed ur al ly de fau lt ed

, we co nc lu de th at D a n s b y ha s no t m ad e a

su bs ta nt ia l sh owi ng of a de ni al of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig h t

. S e e 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 53 (c);

Sl ac k v. McDa ni el

, 52 9 U.S. 47 3, 48 3- 84 (2 00 0)

. W il li ams do es no t ci te fed eral la w,

an d ne it he r do es And er

so n

. It is no t ev en cl ear th at th es e st at e co ur t de ci si on s pu rp or t

to ap pl y th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t rat he r th an Ark an sa s la w. Dan sb y su gg es ts th at th e

act io n of th e jury in th is cas e v io la te d t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t as co ns tru ed in Mil ls

v. Mar yl an d

, 48 6 U.S. 36 7 (1 98 8)

. Mil ls va cat ed th e im po si ti on of a de at h se nt en ce

whe re th e reco rd sh owe d “ a su bs ta nt ia l pr ob ab il it y th at reas on ab le juro rs

. . . well

may ha ve th ou gh t th ey were pr ecl ud ed fro m co ns id eri ng an y m it ig at in g ev id en ce

un le ss al l 12 juro rs ag reed on th e ex is te nc e of a pa rti cu la r su ch ci rcu m st an ce.” Id

. at

38 4; se e al

so Co mmon wea lt h v. Ch amb er s , 80 7 A.2d 87 2, 88 3 (Pa. 20 02 ) (fi nd in g an Eig ht h Am en dm en t vi ol at io n whe re “ th e in st ru ct io n, whe n read as a who le

, se em s to

in di c a t e to juro rs th at

, on ce th ey ha ve un an im ou sl y fo un d an ag gr av at in g

ci rcu m st an ce, be fo re th ey can weig h ag gr av at in g ci rcu ms t a nc es ag ai ns t an y

m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces , th ey m us t al l fin d t he ex is te nc e o f at lea st on e m it ig at in g

ci rcu m st an ce”)

.

In ou r vi ew, th ere is no t a su bs ta nt ia l sh o w i n g o n th is reco rd of an Eig ht h

Am en dm en t vi ol at io n ba se d on Mil ls

. Op t io n B on th e ve rd ic t fo rm in th is cas e pl ai nl y al lo wed th e jury to li st m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ces th a t a n y on e ju ro r fo un d

pr ob ab ly ex is te d, ev en whe n th e jury di d no t f i n d t h at ci rcu m st an ce un an im ou sl y

. The in st ru ct io ns an d fo rm s t hu s d id no t ru n a fo ul of t he rul e st at ed in Mil ls

.

Dan sb y ap pe ars to pr op os e a di ffer en t Eig ht h Am en dm en t ru le —n am el y , th at

if th e de fen da nt su bm it s ev id en ce th at he cl ai m s to be m it ig at in g, th en a fai lu re of th e jury to fin d th at th ere was ev id en ce of a m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ce vi ol at es th e Eig ht h

Am e n d men t

. Dan sb y id en ti fie s no de ci si on of th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d

St at es th at so ho ld s, an d th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t act ua ll y reject s th e pr op os it io n.

In Hil l v. St at e , 96 2 S.W .2d 76 2 (Ark. 19 98 ), th e st at e su pr em e co ur t hel d th at “ ‘[a]

-2 2-jury is no t req ui red to fin d a m it ig at in g ci rcu m st an ce jus t be cau se th e de fen da nt pu ts

be fo re th e jury so m e ev id en ce th at co ul d se rv e as th e ba si s fo r fin di ng th e m it ig at in g

ci rcu m st an ce.’” Id

. at 76 4 (q uo ti ng Bow en v. St at e , 91 1 S.W .2d 55 5, 56 1 (Ark

. 19 95 )). A jury, th e co ur t ex pl ai ne d, m ay reject al l or an y pa rt of a de fen da nt ’s

m it ig at in g ev id en ce. 96 2 S.W .2d at 76 4. In th is ve ry cas e, th e st at e su pr em e co ur t

ci te d Hil l fo r th at po in t in di sm is si ng Dan sb y ’s cl ai m th at hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e

at th e pe na lt y ph as e be cau se th e jury fo un d no m it ig at in g fact or s. 84 S.W .3d at 86 2-

63

. Dan sb y ’s jury was free to reject hi s pr op os ed m it ig at in g ev id en ce. Tha t th e jury

m ark ed Opt io n D on th e ve rd ic t fo rm do es no t tra ns la te in to a su bs ta nt ia l sh owi ng of

a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.

B.

Dan sb y ne xt ap pl ie s fo r an ex pa nd ed c e r t i f i cat e wit h res pe ct to Cl ai m V, h is

arg um en t th at in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of tri al co un se l vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r th e Si xt h

Am en dm en t. T he dis tr ic t co ur t di sm is se d th e cl ai m as pr oc ed ur al ly de fau lt ed be cau se

Dan sb y di d no t pr e s e n t t he al le ge d de fic ie nc ie s in co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce to th e

Ark an sa s co ur ts

. Dan sb y co nt en ds th at in te rv en in g de ci si on s of th e Su pr em e Co ur t

in Map le s v. Th oma s , 13 2 S. Ct

. 91 2 (20 12 ), an d Mar ti ne z v. Ryan , 13 2 S . Ct. 1 30 9
(2 01 2)

, m ak e th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr oc ed ur al ru li ng de ba ta bl e. Se e Sl ac k

, 52 9 U.S. at

47 8. We add res s ea ch ne w dec is io n i n t ur n.

1.

Map le s he ld th at a ha be as pe ti ti on er sh owe d cau se th at ex cu se d hi s pr oc ed ur al

de fau lt un de r st at e la w whe n th e at to rn ey rep res en ti ng th e pe ti ti on er ab an do ne d hi m

wit ho ut no ti ce, an d th ereb y oc cas io ne d th e de fau lt

. 13 2 S. Ct

. at 92 2

. In th at

ci rcu m st an ce, th e at to rn ey ha d se ve red th e pr in ci pa l-a ge nt rel at io ns hi p an d no lo ng er

se rv ed as th e cl ie nt ’s rep res en ta ti ve , so th e at to rn ey ’s erro r was no t at tri bu ta bl e to th e

pe ti ti on er cl ie nt

. Id

. at 92 3.

-2 3-Dan sb y co nt en ds th at hi s po st co nv ic ti on at to rn ey , Dav id Tall ey , ceas ed to act

as hi s ag en t be cau se he su ffer ed fro m a c o n f li ct of in te res t. He hi gh li gh ts th e

Su pr em e Co ur t’s fav or ab le ci ta ti on in Map le s of Ja mis on v. Lo ckh ar t

, 97 5 F.2 d 13 77

, 13 80 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ), whi ch he ld th at at to rn ey co nd uc t m ay pr ov id e cau se to ex cu se

a st at e pr oc ed ur al de fau lt whe re, as a res ul t of a co nf li ct of in te res t, a po st co nv ic ti on

at to rn ey “ ceas ed to be [th e p et it io ne r’s] agen t.” Se e 13 2 S . Ct. at 92 3.

The fact ua l ba si s fo r th e as se rti on of a co nf li ct of in te res t is as fo ll ows

. At tri al

, Dan sb y was rep res en te d by at to rn ey Ja n Tho rn to n. Ano th er at to rn ey , Did i Sal li ng s,

w a s t h e n a st aff at to rn ey wit h th e Ark an sa s Deat h Pen al ty Res ou rce Cen te r.

Acco rd in g t o h er t es ti m on y at t he po st co nv ic ti on he ari ng , S al li ng s was no t co un se l

of reco rd fo r Dan sb y , bu t sh e “ he lp ed on th e Dan sb y cas e.” Po st co nv ic ti on R. 19 3.

At th e ti m e of Dan sb y ’s po st co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in g, S a l l i n g s was th e ex ecu ti ve

di rect or of t he Arka ns as Pu bl ic Defen de r Co m m is si on

.

W he n Dan sb y fil ed hi s pe ti ti on fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f in st at e co ur t in May

19 95

, he was rep res en te d by at to rn ey Al Sch ay

. In Ju ne 19 95

, Sch ay fil ed a m ot io n

fo r l e a v e t o f

i l e an ex pa nd ed am en de d pe ti ti on

. As an at ta ch m en t to th at am en de d

pe ti ti on , Sch ay in cl ud ed an affi da vi t si gn ed by Sal li ng s. Sal li ng s av erre d th at sh e ha d

b e e n a s s i g ne d, as an at to rn ey wit h th e Res ou rce Cen te r, to pr ov id e as si st an ce t o

at to rn ey Tho rn to n in Dan sb y ’s cas e. The Sal li ng s affi da vi t li st ed m ul ti pl e reas on s why Sall in gs be li ev ed th at Tho rn to n p ro vi de d i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e at tri al

.

In Aug us t 19 98

, th e po st co nv ic ti on co ur t ap po in te d at to rn ey Tal l e y , pu bl ic

de fen de r fo r Uni on Co un ty, Ark an sa s, to rep res en t Dan sb y in po st co nv ic ti on

pr oc eed in gs

. Sever al m on th s la te r, at to rn ey Kath eri ne St reet t of th e pu bl ic de fen de r’s

of fic e w r o t e t o th e jud ge to ex pr es s he r “ co nc ern ” th at at to rn ey s em pl oyed by th e

Ark an sa s Pu bl ic Defen de r Co m m is si on “ m ay be un ab le to rep res en t Mr. Dan sb y ” du e

to a co nf li ct

. St reet t reco un te d th at Sal li ng s was th en th e ex ecu ti ve di rect o r of th e

co m m is si on an d th e “ ti tu la r bo ss ” of at to rn ey s St reet t a n d Tall ey

. St reet t’s le tt er

-2 4-ex pr es se d co nc ern th at be cau se Sal li ng s pr ov id ed as si st an ce to Tho rn to n be fo re an d

du rin g Dan sb y ’s tri al

, it ap pe ared th a t t h e p r oc eed in g m us t ad dr es s no t on ly

Tho rn to n’s rep res en ta ti on of Dan s b y, bu t al so Sal li ng s’s rep res en ta ti on

. St reet t

su gg es te d t ha t t he si tu at io n crea te d at le as t “ th e ap pe aran ce of a co nf li ct if a pu bl ic

de fen de r rep res en ts Mr. Dan sb y .”

The reco rd in cl ud es no res po ns e fro m th e c o u r t a n d no m ot io n of co un se l to

wit hd raw or m ot io n to su bs ti tu te co un se l. Tall ey an d Stre et t repr es en te d Dan sb y at

th e ev id en ti ary h eari ng in th e po st co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in g. Tall ey cal le d S a l l i ng s as

a wit ne ss

. Co ns is te nt wit h he r affi da vi t, Sal li ng s te st ifi ed to he r be li ef th at Tho rn to n

pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce.

W e are no t co nv in ced th ere is a de ba ta bl e qu es ti on whe th er Tal l e y ceas ed to

be Dan sb y ’s ag en t be cau se of an al le ge d co nf li ct of in te r e s t be twee n Dan sb y an d

Sal li ng s. Sal li ng s was no t co un se l of reco rd fo r Dan sb y at hi s t ria l. W he n Dan sb y

fil ed his pe tit ion fo r pos tc on vi ct io n rel ie f, rep res en te d by an at to rn ey un affi li at ed wit h

th e pu bl ic de fen de r syste m , he el ect ed to fo cu s hi s cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l on th e pe rfo rm an ce of at to rn ey Tho rn to n. Sal li ng s act ua ll y fil ed an affi da vi t

i n s up po rt of Dan sb y ’s ex pa nd ed pe ti ti on , at ta ck in g th e qu al it y of Tho rn to n’ s

rep res en ta ti on

. Sal li n g s th en te st ifi ed at th e po st co nv ic ti on he ari ng in su pp or t of

Dan sb y ’s co nt en ti on th at Tho rn to n was in effe ct iv e. In t h i s fed eral ha be as act io n,

Dan sb y see ks to av oi d t he pr oc ed ur al de fau lt of hi s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s i n

or de r to ch al le ng e Th or nt on ’s pe rfo rm an ce at tri al

. Ev e n if Dan sb y ha d wis he d to

ch al le ng e th e “ as si st an ce” pro vi de d by Sal li ng s, m or eo ve r, th ere is no sh owi ng th at

Tall ey an d St reet t owe d an y du ty of lo yalt y to Sal li ng s as a res ul t of he r “ ti tu la r”

st at us as ex ecu ti ve di rect or of th e pu bl ic de fen de r co m m is si on

. The re is al so no cl ai m

th at Sal li ng s ha d an y ro le in su pe rv is in g th e rep res en ta ti on of Dan sb y in th e

po st co nv ic ti on pro ceed in g. In ou r vi ew, th is cas e is a lo ng way fro m th e “ ve rit ab le

pe rfec t st or m of m is fo rtu ne ,” 13 2 S. Ct

. at 92 9 (Ali to

, J., co nc ur rin g)

, th at be fel l th e

pe ti ti on er in Map le s , wh o m is se d th e fil in g d e a d l i n e f or a no ti ce of ap pe al be cau se

-2 5-he was le ft with ou t any fu nc ti on in g att or ne y of reco rd an d had no reas on to su sp ect

th at he ha d b een red uc ed to pr o s e st at us

.

D an sb y al so as se rts th at hi s ag en cy rel at io ns hi p wit h po st co nv ic ti on co un se l

was se ve red be cau se at to rn ey Tall ey di d no t m eet th e qu al ifi cat io ns req ui red fo r

ap po in tm en t of co un se l in cap it al po st co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in gs in Ark an sa s. Se e Ark

. R. Cri m

. P. 37 .5 (1 99 8)

. He fir st rai se d th i s p o i n t i n t h e di st ric t co ur t in a

“Su p p le m en t to Mo ti on To Alt er or Am en d Ju dg m en t Pu rs ua nt to Fed

. R. Ci v. P

. 59 (e).” R. D o c

. 8 0

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th is as pe ct of th e m ot io n to al te r or 3

am en d on th e gr ou nd th at Dan sb y rai se d an arg um en t th at co ul d ha ve be en an d sh ou ld

ha ve be en rai se d pr ev io us ly. Bec au se th e is su e was no t rai se d pr op erl y in th e di st ric t

c o ur t, we wil l no t ex pa nd th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y to ad dr es s it on ap pe al

. Free man v. Bus ch , 34 9 F .3d 58 2, 5 89 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.

2.

R e l yi n g on Mar ti ne

z , Dan sb y co nt en ds th at in effe ct iv e as si st an ce by hi s

po stc onvi ct ion co unse l es ta bli shes cau se to ex cu se hi s pr oc ed ur al de fau lt on Cl ai m V.

In W oo te n v. No rr is

, 57 8 F.3 d 76 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), a cap it al cas e fro m Ark an sa s, th is

co ur t ci te d Co le man v. Th omp so n , 50 1 U.S. 72 2, 75 2- 55 (1 99 1)

, fo r th e pr op os it io n

th at “ in ef f e c t i ve as si st an ce of co un se l du rin g st at e po st -co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in gs

can no t s erv e as cau se to ex cu se fact ua l o r pr oc ed ur al de fau lt .” 57 8 F .3d at 7 78

.

Dan sb y ha s no t ch al le ng ed th e qu al ifi cat io ns of at to rn ey Sch ay , who fil ed th e 3

pe ti ti on th at id en ti fie d Dan sb y ’s cl ai m s fo r po st co nv ic ti on rel ie f. Cf

. Ark

. R. Cri m

. P. 37 .5 (1 99 8) (p ro vi di ng th at “ [a ] t le as t on e of th e at to rn eys ” ap po in te d to rep res en t
th e po st co nv ic ti on ap pl ic an t sh al l ha ve cert ai n qu al ifi cat io ns ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. The

reco rd do es no t refl ect whe th er Sch ay wit hd rew fro m rep res en ti ng Dan sb y in th e st at e

po st co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in g aft er Talle y was ap po in te d. The di st ric t co ur t ap po in te d

Sch ay to rep res en t Dan sb y

in th e fed eral ha be as pro ceed in g. R. Do c. 4.

-2 6-Mar ti ne z an no un ced a “ na rro w exc ep ti on ” to th e Co le man ru le :

W he re, un de r st at e la w, cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of tri al co un se l

m us t be rai se d in an in it ia l-r e vi ew co ll at eral pr oc eed in g, a pr oc ed ur al

de fau lt wil l no t ba r a fed eral ha be as co ur t fro m he ari ng a s u bs ta nt ia l

cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce at tria l if, in th e in it ia l-r ev ie w col la te ral

pr oc eed in g, th ere was no co un se l or co un se l in th at pr oc ee di ng was in effe ct iv e.

13 2 S . Ct. at 13 20

.

The co ur t de fin ed “ in it ia l-r ev ie w co ll at eral pr oc eed in g” as a co ll at e r al

pr oc eed in g th at pr ov id es th e fi rs t o ccas io n t o ra is e a cl ai m of i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce

at tri al

. Id

. at 13 15

. Mar ti ne z “ ad dr es se [d ] on ly th e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s pr es en te d

in [th at ] cas e, whe re th e St at e ba rred th e de fen da nt fro m rai si ng th e cl ai m s on di rect

ap pe al .” Id

. at 13 20

. The cas e aro se fro m th e St at e of Ariz on a, an d “ Ariz on a do es

no t pe rm it a co nv ic te d pe rs on al le gi ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of tri al co un se l to rai se

th at cl ai m on di rect rev ie w.” 13 2 S. Ct . at 1 31 3; se e S ta te ex r el . Tho mas v. Raye s , 15 3 P .3d 10 40 , 10 44 (Ariz . 2 00 7) (“ [A] d efen da nt m ay br in g i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e

of co un se l cl ai m s on ly in a Ru le 32 po st -co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in g— no t be fo re tri al

, at

tri al , o r on di rect rev ie w.”); St at e v. Sa ng Le , 2 12 P.3 d 91 8, 91 8- 19 (Ari z. Ct . Ap p.

20 09 ) (“ Bec au se

. . . ou r su pr em e c ou rt ha s de si gn at ed Ru le 32 pr oc eed in gs as th e

pr op er ve hi cl e fo r rai si ng su c h c l a im s, it th eref or e fo ll ows th at de fen da nt s m ay no t

as se rt in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of c o u n s e l cl ai m s in po st -tr ia l m ot io ns un de r Ru le

24 .2.”)

.

Mar ti ne z do es no t ap pl y he re, be cau se Ark an sa s do es no t ba r a de fen da nt fro m

rai si ng cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of tri al co un se l on di rect ap pe al

. Ark an sa s la w

pe rm it te d Dan sb y

to rai se a cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce in a m ot io n for n ew tr ia l

an d on di rect ap pe al . Ark. R. Cri m . P. 36 .22 (1 99 3) ; Hal fa cr e v. St at e , 57 8 S.W .2d

23 7, 23 9 (Ark

. 19 79 ); Hil li ar d v. St at e , 53 1 S.W .2d 46 3, 46 4- 65 (Ark

. 19 76 ); se e al so

-2 7-St at e v. Rob in so n , 20 11 Ark

. 90

, at *6 (Ark

. Mar

. 3, 20 11 ); Rou ns av il le v. St at e , 28 8

S.W .3d 21 3, 21 7 (Ark

. 20 08 ); Mis si ld in e v. St at e , 86 3 S.W .2d 81 3, 81 8 (Ark

. 19 93 ).

The S u p r e m e Co ur t in Mar ti ne z was cl ear th at it s “ na rro w ex cep ti on ” to

Co le man was li m it ed to th e si tu at io n in whi ch th e S t a t e b a r r ed th e de fen da nt fro m

rai si ng a cl ai m of in effe ct iv e as si st an c e on di rect ap pe al

. 13 2 S. Ct

. at 13 16

. The

Co ur t was no t si le nt ab ou t a p os si bl e ex te ns io n o f Mar ti ne z to a St at e th at do es no t

i mp o s e s u ch a ba r. The Co ur t di d no t ex pr es sl y res erv e jud gm en t, as it so m et i mes

do es whe n a qu es ti on is de ba ta bl e. The Co ur t was ex pl ic it ab ou t th e fin it e sc op e of

it s de ci si on : “ The ru le of Co le man go ve rn s in al l b u t th e li m it ed ci rcu m st an ces

reco gn iz ed he re.” Id

. at 13 20

.

Mar ti ne z th us do es no t au th or iz e a de pa rtu re fro m ou r ci rcu it pr eced en t in

W oo te n an d si m il ar cas es

. The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y ru le d th at C l a i m V is

pr oc ed ur al ly de fau lt ed

, an d Mar ti ne z do es no t m ak e th e ru li ng de ba ta bl e. W e ne ed

no t ad dr es s whe th er Dan sb y m ak es a su bs ta n t ia l sh owi ng of a de ni al of a

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht on th e m eri ts

.

C.

Dan sb y al so ap pl ie s to ex pa nd th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y as to a po rti on of

Cl ai m XV, whic h a ll eg es in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l at th e pe na lt y st ag e, an d

Cl ai m XIX, whi ch as se rts in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of c o u n s e l on di rect ap pe al

. The

di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th es e cl ai m s ba se d on pr oc ed ur al de fau lt

. Rel y in g on Map le s

an d Mar ti ne

z , Dan sb y se ek s to ex pa nd th e cert ifi cat e. Su bs ta nt ia ll y for th e rea so ns

di sc us se d in Part III.B, we de ny th e ap pl ic at io n. W it h res pe ct to Cl ai m XV, Ark an sa s

la w di d no t ba r Dan sb y fro m as se rti ng in a ne w tri al m ot io n an d on di rect ap pe al th e

in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of tri al co un se l at th e pe na lt y st ag e. On Cl ai m XIX, th e na rro w

ex cep ti on of Mar ti ne

z is li m it ed to cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si s t a n c e of tr ia l co un se l

an d do es no t ex te nd to al le ge d i n e ffec ti ve ne ss of ap pe ll at e co un se l. The ru le of

-2 8-Co le man go ve rn s th es e cl ai m s, an d we ne ed no t ad dr es s whe th er th e m eri ts of ei th er

cl ai m sat is fie s t he st an da rd of § 22 53 (c).

* * *

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we va cat e th e di sm is sa l of Cl ai m II an d Cl ai m III

in Dan sb y ’s se co nd am en de d pe ti ti on an d rem an d th e cas e fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n

of th os e cl ai m s. W e affi rm th e di sm is sa l of th e rem ai ni ng cl ai m s on ap pe al

, an d de ny

th e ap pl ic at io ns to ex pa nd th e cer ti fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 9-