FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 2, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 05 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cv -2 30 16 -J AL

ANTHONYB. W ILSON, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ju ly 2, 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFALT, ED MONDSON an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:In W

il so n v . Stat e , th e Fl or id a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal affi rm edAnt ho ny W il so n’s co nv ic ti on s fo r “ at te m pt edfir stde gr ee m

ur de r an d b ur gl ary wit h a ba tt ery whi le arm edwith akn ife , inco nn ect io n wi th th e st ab bi ng of An tro n P op e in si de Po pe ’s ho m e.” 8 80 So .2d12 87 (Fl a. 3dD.C.A. 20 04 ). Afterex haus ti ng hi s st at e rem ed ie s, Wils on pe ti ti on edth e U.S. Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ct of Flo rid a fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d rel ie f. W il so n app eal ed , andwe is su eda cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on on e is su e, to -wit : Whe th er the di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d t he de fere nc e st an da rd un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) to W il so n’s cl ai m , and , if s o, wh ethe r th e di st ric t co urt erredin fin di ng th atth e p ro se cu to r’s qu es ti on s an d co m m en ts , reg ard in g wh ethe r W il so n b el ie ve d t ha t the ot he r wit ne ss es were l y in g a ndco ns pi rin g a ga in sthi m , di d n otco ns ti tu te a vi ol at io n o f W il so n’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s? As t he di st ric t co urt s ta te d i n d en y in g h ab eas rel ie f, th e “ cl ai m ” Wils onpre se nt ed
was whe th er Wils on was d en ie d afun da m en ta ll y fai r tr ia l due to all eg ed pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t dur in g c ro ss -ex am in at io n a ndclo si ng arg um en ts . W il so n a ll eg e[d ] th atth e p ro se cu to r was pe rm it te d t o a sk hi m . . . whe th er the pro se cu ti on ’s witne ss es were l ie d dur in g the ir te st im on y an d wer e co ns pi rin g a ga in sthi m . The p ro se cu to r la te r m ad e ref eren ce t o Wil so n’s b el ie f in th e co ns pi racy agai ns t h im du rin g s umm at io n. Ord er, March 30 . 20 11 , at 1 -2 . The rel ev an t p orti on of t he ch al le ng edcro ss 2ex am in at io n was th is :

Q: No w y ousatth ere t he who le ti m e an d l is te ne d t o wh at ev erybod y

sai d? A: Yes
. Q: Yo u h eardwhatKia s ai d. Th aty ouwere h aras si ng Sh irl ey , y ouwere were co m in g b y co ns ta nt ly andwou ld n’t g o a way ? A: I h eardev erythi ng . Q: Yo u h eardwhatDake id ra s ai d, you wer e co m in g t o the ho us e an d youwere h aras si ng Sh irl ey an d wan te d S hi rle y

ba ck . You he ardth at ? A: Yes
. Q: Yo u h eardAnt ro n’s t es ti m on y , y es ? A: Yes
. Q: An d youhe ardto da y , Shi rle y ’s ownm ot he r co m e in he re an d te st ify abo utho w y ouwere thr eat en in g h er d au gh te r an d h ow you were t hr eat en in g An tro n. Bu t the y ’re all lying ? DEFENSE COUNSEL: Object io n. He h as to be he re dur in g t ria l. THE COURT: No s pe ak in g o bjec ti on . Object io n o ve rru le d. Tal k ab ou t i t s id eb ar. Co nt in ue . DEFENSE COUNSEL: May I hav e a s id eb ar? It i s i m pr op er t o a sk on e wit ne ss
— THE COURT: St op , st op . Thatis a sp eak in g o bjec ti on . Q: Do y oube li ev e th atall th es e wit ne ss es are co ns pi rin g a ga in st y ou ? A: Well

— Q: Th at ’s whaty outh in k, thi s i s a b ig co ns pi racy? Yo u’ve go t the of fic er. Yo u’ve go t Sh irl ey ’s m ot he r. You ’ve g otSh irl ey ’s frie nd
. Yougo t An tro n, t he ex bo y fri en d. Yo u g otev erybod y co m in g i n he re s ay in g t he same thi ng , bu t i t i s b ecau se th ey are co ns pi rin g ag ai ns t you? DEFENSE COUNSEL: Object io n. Tha t i s ar gu m en ta ti ve . THE COURT: Ove rru le d. Q: Yes or n o, ar e th ey

co ns pi rin g a ga in sty ou ? A: Yes
.
3Id
. at 2 . Andth e rel ev an t p orti on of t he ch al le ng edjury arg um en t was :

Youhave he ardfro m

a lo t o f wit ne ss es . [W il so n] y es te rd ay tel ls y ou th atit s a c on sp ira cy . Now, we’ve h earda lo t o f pr ep os te ro us th in gs , bu t t ha t i s t he ul ti m at e. To s ay th atSh irl ey ’s m ot he r an d An tro n Po pe , hi s fa m il y , hi s o wn fr ie nd , Dake idra an d Ki a al l ca m e in he re t o co ns pi re ag ai ns t h im , bec au se of wh at ? Becaus e itis no t t ru e. Ther e is no co ns pi racy. The on ly thi ng we’re try in g t o d o i s ac hi ev e th e tru th , getto jus ti ce, l ad ie s an d g en tl em en . Id
. at 3
. W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on reject in g Wil so n’s due pr oc es s cl ai m . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) , as a m en de d b y th e Ant it erro ris m

an d Effect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (“ AEDPA”). Pur su an t t o t he AEDPA, a di st ric t co urt m

us t d en y habe as rel ie f to a st at e p ris on er o n c la im s t ha t wer e pr ev io us ly adjud ic at edon th e m eri ts in st at e co urt, u nl es s t he st at e co urt’s ad jud ic at io n: “ (1 ) . . . was co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d St at es ; o r (2 ) . . . was ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fac ts in li gh t of th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . In th is cas e, th e que st io ns we m us t d eci de are wh ethe r th e Fl or id a Dis tri ctCo urt o f App eal ’s dec is io n re

jecti ng th e cl ai m

th e d is tri ctco urt s etou t ab ov e “ was co nt rary to , or i nv ol ve d a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh edFed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s . ”
4The di stric t co urt o f ap pe al fou ndth atth e p ro se cu to r’s qu es ti on s o n c ro ss ex am in at io n “ were i m

pr op er” u nd er Fl or id a la w, as an no un cedin W hi tf ie ld v. St at e , 54 9 S o.2 d 1 20 1 (F la . 3dDCA 19 89 ), bu t t ha t t he co nduc t co ns ti tu te d

“ ha rm le ss erro r be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” W il so n , 88 0 S o.2 d a t 1 28 9. Th e co urt d idno t p as s o n t he pro pr ie ty of th e p ro se cu to r’s “ co ns pi racy” comm en ts to th e jury becaus e, in th e co urt’s re ad in g o f th e tr ia l t ran sc rip t, the “ co ns pi racy of wit ne ss es ag ai ns t Wils on was n otm en ti on eddu rin g t he Sta te ’s clo si ng arg um en t.” Id
. The co urt was m is take n; as i nd ic at edin th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er at3, the
co ns pi racy was m en ti on ed
. Neit he r th e d is tri ctco urt o f ap pe al ’s dec is io n a ffi rm in g Wil so n’s co nv ic ti on no r th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g h ab eas rel ie f ci te d aSupr em e Co urt d eci si on ho ld in g, o r ev enin ti m at in g, t ha t as ki ng a de fen da nton cro ss -ex am in at io n wh ethe r a p ro se cu ti on witne ss li edco ns ti tu te s a d en ia l o f du e p ro ces s o f la w. The s am e go es for th e p ro se cu to r’s co ns pi racy referen ces clo si ng arg um en t; ne ithe r W il so n no r th e d is tri ctco urt i n i ts Orde r ci te s a S up rem e Co urt d eci si onan ywhe re i n po in t. No ne th el es s, we wi ll ass um e fo r sa ke of arg um en t t ha t t he Supr em e Co urt
wou ldtre atth e p ro se cu to ria l co nduc t co m pl ai ne d o f as pre se nt in g pr ima fa ci e a du e p ro ces s cl ai m . Furthe r, be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt o f ap pe al di d n otpa ss on th e pr os ecu to r’s “ co ns pi racy” comm en ts in clo si ng arg um en t, we co ns id er the
5pr op rie ty of th e co m m en ts de no vo . Anddo in g s o, we as k wh ethe r th e tr ia l co urt
erro r—i n o ve rru li ng de fen se co un se l’s o bjec ti onto th e p ro se cu to r’s qu es ti on in g on cro ss -ex am in at io n a nd(we as su m e) t o t he pro se cu to r’s “ co ns pi racy” refere nc e in clo si ng arg um en t— “ ‘hada subs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n de te rm in in g t he jury’ s v erd ic t.’” Brec ht v. Abr ah ams on , 50 7 U.S. 6 17 , 63 7, 1 13 S.Ct . 17 10 , 17 22 , 12 3 L.Ed .2d35 3 (1 99 3) (qu ot in g Ko tt ea ko s v. Un it ed St at es , 32 8 U.S. 7 50 , 76 6, 6 6 S .Ct. 1 23 9, 1 25 3, 9 0 L. Ed.2 d 1 55 7 (1 94 6)
. W e co nc lu de th atth e err orwas h arm le ss . As th e d is tri ctco urt o f ap pe al
rem ark ed , “ [t]he qu es ti on s [p utto W il so n o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n] can no t p os si bl y vi ti at e th e en ti re ei gh t-d ay tri al , andth ey

di d n otch an ge th e p hysic al ev id en ce o f
m ul ti pl e st ab wou nd s s uf

fere d b y Po pe . 88 0 S o.2 d a t 1 28 9. Th e sa m e is tru e wit h
res pe ctto th e p ro se cu to r’s co m m en ts in clo si ng arg um en t. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on de nyin g Wil so n h ab eas co rp us rel ie f is , AFFIR MED.

6