### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30174

T E R R A N C E J O N E S , P et i t i on er – A pp el l ee v . BURL CAI N, W ARDEN, L OUI S I ANA S TA TE P ENI TE NTI ARY, Res po nde nt– Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 2: 06- C V

- 939

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . E D ITH B R O W N C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg e: Fi ndi ng t hata st a te cou rt un rea son a b l y a p p l i ed cl ea rl y e stab li she d f ede r al l aw by h ol di n g t h at n o S i xth A m en dm en t vi ol ati on occurred w h en a j u ry hea rd
recor de d t e s t i m o ny f r o m a de c e as e d w i t ne s s t o a m ur de r , t he di s t r i c tcourt gr ant e d t he de fe nda nt ’ s pe t i t i o n f o ra w r i to f

ha be as c o r pus . W e af f i r m t he g r ant
o f t he w r i tb utv ac at e t he por t i o n of t he or de rre qui r i ng t he St at e t o di s m i s s t he
u n derl yi n g i n di ct m en ti f i tfai l s t o ret ry t h e defen da n tw i t h i n 120 day s. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 15, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

The underlyingfacts are laid out in more detail in Statev. J ones , 84 1 S o. 2 d 96 5, 9 69- 1 72 (La . C t. App. 20 03) (hereinafter “JonesII ”)

. 2 F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS A. Fac t ual Bac kgr ound In N ovem b e r 200 1, a j u ry convi ct ed T errance Jon es of sec on d-degree
m urde rf

or t he sho ot i ng of

M ar t y M ar t i n i n t he e ar l y m or ni ng of Jul y 28, 1997. 1 P u rsuan tt o L ou i si an a’ s m an da t ory sentenci n g ru l es, t h e st ate t ri alcourt
s e n te n c e d h im to life in p r is o n w ith o u t t h e p o s s ib ilityo f p a r o le
. R esp on d i n g to a ca l l a b ou t a sh oo ti n g, a Je ff erso n C ou n ty S h erif

f’ s D ep u ty d is c o v e r e dM a r t in ’s b o d yin a b lu e O ld s m o b il e a dja c e n tto J a m e s A r tb e r r y ’s h o u s e i n M a r r e r o , L o u i s i a n a . M a r t i n h a db e e n s h o to n c e i n t h e c h e s t
. EMS t echn i ci an s w h o arrived soon af t er f ou n d that M art i n ha d n o vi t alsi gn s. A rtberry t ol d th e p o li ce he ha d w i t n essed t h e shooti n g. H e gave a sh ort
s t at e m e nta tt he s c e ne , i nc l udi ng a desc ri pti on o f t he pe r pe t r at o ra nd t he per pet r at or ’ s c ar . D et ective M i ke Tuckert hen t oo k hi m t o t he C r i m i nal In ve sti ga ti on s B u rea u for qu estion i n g. A rtbe rryga ve tw o rec ord ed statem en ts t o D et ec t ive Tu c ker
. I n t he f i r st , take n af

t er3: 00 a. m . , A r tber r y sai d thath e had seen M art i n at aroun d 10: 00 p. m . tha tn i gh ta ta b ar in M arrero. H e expl ai n ed t hatM ar t i n aske d hi m t o he l p f i nd a pr os t i t ut e, t hathe ag r ee d t o do s o, butt hat t he s e ar c h was uns uc c e s s f ula nd t he t w o re t ur ne d t o t he b ar . Ar tbe r r y s ai d he
w al ke d hom e w i t ho utM ar t i n and l at e rs aw t w o b l ac k m e n i n aPo nt i acG r and P r ixw ith tin te d w in d o w s a n d a y e llo w s t i c k e r o n th e b a c k w in d o w p u ll u p in fr o n t o f h i s h o u s e . H e cla im e dto h a v e s e e n o n e o f th e tw o m e n s h o o t M a r tin
over w h at appea red t o b e a drugdeal gon e w rong. H e st ated t h at he di d n otget Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

3 a go od l oo k att he s hoot er ’ s fac e ort he pas se ngeri n t he s hoot er ’ s c ar , and t hat h e coul d n oti den t i f

y t h e shooter
. A rtbe rryga ve the seco n d reco rd ed statem en t sh ortly a ft er 4: 0 0 a . m . In i t, h e a ckno w l e dg e d hi s fai l ur e t o di s c l o s e s o m e i nf o r m at i o n du r i ng t he f i r st
s t at e m e nt , w hi c h he b l am e d o n hi s fe arof t he sho o t e r ; he al s o ex pl ai ne d t hathe hadb e e n i nvo lve d i n t he dr ug de al
. I n t hi s v e r s i o n o f t he s t o r y, a f

t e rt he
u n successf

u lsearc h f

or a prost i t u t e, M art i n asked A rtberry w h ere he coul d get
c r ac k c o c ai ne . Ar tbe r r y t o o k M ar t i n t o a w om an w ho f l ag ge d d o w n t he b l ue G r andPr i x andt o l d t he o c c upa n t s thatM ar t i n want e d d r ugs . M ar t i n a nd A r tb e r r yfo llo w e d th e G r a n d P r ixin M a r tin ’ s ca ra n d m e t it s tw o b la c k m a le p a s s e n g e r s o u ts i d e A r tb e r r y ’ s h o u s e . A r tb e r r ys ta te dth a t h e s a w M a r tin ap proach t h e passen ger w i n dow of t h e G ran d P ri x, w h ere he rec eived a rock of
c r a c k co c a in e a n d h a n d e d o v e rs o m e m o n e y . T h e p a s s e n g e rcla im e dth a t M a r tin h a d g iv e n h im o n lya o n e - d o l l a r b ill in s te a do f a tw e n ty
. M a r tin lo o k e din h is p ock ets a n d the n w en t to h i s ca r a n dru m m a ge da rou n din side i t. A t th i s p oin t, th e p a s s e n g e rin th e G r a n d P r ixt o ldt h e d r iv e rt o “ k n o c k h is f u c k in gh e a d o ff.” A f t erl oo ki ng atA r tber r y and t el l i ng hi m t hathe bl am ed Artber r y f orw hathad h ap pen ed, t h e driver shot M art i n t w i ce. D u ri n g t h i s s econd i n t ervi ew , A rtberry i den t i f i ed t h e sh oot er as a bl ack m an na m ed T errance w h o l ived on P oe Street in W e s tw e g o . A r tb e r r ycla im e dto h a v e k n o w n T e r r a n c e fo rs e v e r a l y e a r s . S u b s e q u e n tly , th e p o lic e co m p o s e da p h o to lin e u p b a s e do n th is i n f orm ati on . A rtberry di d n oti den t i f y an y of t h e subj ect s as the shooter. W h en presented w i t h a sec on d l i n eu p contai n i n g a pic t u re of Jon es, how ever, A rtberry Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

The third recor ded statement was al so pl ayed tothe j uryatJones’s trial, b ut the 2 recorddoe s notc ontainatran scriptof it
. 4 pi cked hi m out as t h e shooter
. A f t er thi s i den t i f

i cat i on , tw o d et ect ives rec orded a thi rd i n t ervi ew w i t h A rtberry athi s hom e. 2 A r tb e r r yt e s t i f

i e d a ta s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n gb e f o r e J o n e s ’ s f

i r s tt r i a l
. H e s t at e d t hat h e h ad b e e n a bl e t o i de nt i f y t he pe r pe t r at o ri n apho t o l i ne up a nd t hatt he pe r pe t r at o rw as na m e d “ Ter r anc e . ” H e i de nt i f i e d Jo ne s i n c o ur ta s t he
sam e pe r s o n he ha d i de nt i f i e d i n t he l i ne up. J o ne s ’ s c o uns e lc r o s s - e xam i n ed A r tber r y abo ut t hes e st at em ent s but not aboutt he r ec or ded s t at em ent s he had gi ven t h e pol i ce; Jon es’ s defen se c ou n seld id n otl earn t h at t h e rec orded
s t at e m e nt s e xi s t e d un t i la f t e rt he f

i r s tt r i alha d b e gun . Sho r t l y af t e rt he sup pressi on h eari n g, an d bef ore t h e f i rst t ri al , A rtberry di ed of a dru g overdose. B. Pro c e dur alBac kgr ound 1
. Firs t tria l, m istria l, a n dsta te a pp ea ls Jo ne s ’ s f

i r s tt r i alb e ga n i n J ul y 20 00
. Bef o r e t he t r i al , he m o ve d t o e xc l ude Artbe r r y’ s s upp r e s s i o n he ar i ng t e s t i m o ny. The t ri alcour tde ni e d t he m o t i o n. T h e s ta te in te r m e d ia te a p p e lla te co u r t a n ds u p r e m e co u r t a ffir m e dth e d e n ia l. S t atev. Jon es , 7 6 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 1 ( L a . 2 0 0 0 ) (ta b le ); seeS t atev. Jon es , 791 So. 2d 622 , 624 (L a. 200 1) (h erei n af t er “ Jon es I

”). D u ri n g i t s di rectexam i n ati on of D et ect ive T u cker, t h e State soug h tt o i n t rodu ce A rtberry ’ s fir stt w o rec orded
s ta te m e n ts
. T h is w a s t h e fir s t t im e th a t J o n e s ’ s d e fe n s e co u n s e l le a r n e do f th e ir existe n ce . D e fen se c ou n selobj ect ed an d m oved f or a m i st ri al
. Th e t ri alcourt
rev erse d i ts pre tri a lsu p p ress i on ru l i n g a n dgra n ted the m oti on . T h e sta te i n t erm edi ate appell ate c ou rtaf f i rm ed. I thel d that, i n l i gh t of t h e un di scl osed Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

5 st atem en t s, t h e defen se had not had an opp ort u n i t y t o f u l l y an d ef

fect ivel y cros se x a m in e A r tb e r r y a t t h e s u p p r e s s io n h e a r in g . S ee Jon es I, 7 9 1 S o . 2 da t 6 2 4
. Th e Loui si ana Sup r em e Courtr eve r se d. Though i t n oted “ subs t ant i al d is c r e p a n c ie s b e tw e e n A r tb e r r y ’ s s e c o n d s ta te m e n t to D e te c tiv e T u c k e ra n dh is te s tim o n ya t t h e s u p p r e s s io n h e a r in g ,” th e co u r t h e ldth a t J o n e s h a da fa ir oppor t uni t y t o c r os s- exa m i n e Artber r y att he s uppres si on hear i ng and t hat A rtberry’ s heari n g t est i m on y sati sf i ed L ou i si a n a ’ s hearsay excep t i on f or pri or
r e c o r d e d te s tim o n y . I d. a t 6 2 6 -2 8
. Itre m a n d e dth e ca s e fo rre tr ia l. 2
. S ec o n dtria l a n dsta te a pp ea ls J o n e s ’ s s e c o n d t r i a l b e g a n i n No v e m b e r 2 0 0 1
. Th e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s o pe ni ng st at e m e nti nc l ude d ana r r at ive o f t he c r i m e t hatr e l i e d o n t he r e c orded st at em ent s A r tber r y gav e t o t he pol i ce. The pr os ec ut oral so t ol d t he j ury t hat Artbe r r y m ad e t w o s t at e m e nt s w hi l e a tt he po l i ce s t at i o n— o ne i n whi c h he d e n ie d k n o w in gw h o th e s h o o te rw a s , a n da s e c o n din w h ic h h e cla im e dh e co u ld i d en ti fy the sh oo ter. Jon es’ s d efen se co u n sel, i n h i s op en i n g sta tem en t, sugge st ed t hatM ar t i n w as ki l l ed af t erquar r el i ng w i t h A r tber r y and t hat A r tb e r r ych a n g e d h is s to r yw h e n h e re a liz e dh e w a s a s u s p e c t. In accor da n ce w i t h t h e stat e su prem e cou rt ’ s ru l i n g, the S t ate i n t rodu ced Artbe r r y’ s c r o s s - e xa m i ne d t e s t i m o ny f r o m t he s upp r e s s i on hea r i ng w i t ho ut obj ect i on du ri n g i t s c ase- i n - chi ef

. Th e State aga i n cal l ed D et ect ive T u cker as a
w i t n ess. Tu cker t est i f i ed that he h ad tak en three st atem en t s f rom A rtberry on th e n ig h t o f th e m u r d e r a n d th e n b e g a n to te s tify a b o u t w h a t A r tb e r r yh a dto ld h i m . H e rel ated t h e substance of the f i rstrecorded st atem en t

— t h e on e i n w h i ch A rtberry sai d t h at h e cou l d n otidenti f y t h e shooter

— w i t h ou tobj ect i on . W h en T u cker began t o t est i f y abou t w h at A rtberry t ol d hi m du ri n g t h e second recorded Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

The di strict court opinion summariz es the procee dings surroun ding the a dmission 3 of th e recordedst ate me nts
. SeeJ onesv . C

ai n , 60 1 F. Supp. 2d 769 , 77 8-82(E .D. La . 20 09) (hereinafter “Jon es III ”)

. 6 st at em ent

— t he o ne i ncul pat i ng Jones

— def ens e cou nse lobj ec t ed o n hear sa y g r o u n d s . T h e t r ia l co u r t o v e r r u le dth e o b je c tio n , e x p la in in gth a t T u c k e rco u ld t e s t i f y ab o utAr tbe r r y’ s s t at e m e nt s “ f o rpur po s e s of

h i m rel at i ng . . . ho w he cond u ct ed h i s i n vest i gati on . ” Jones’ s c ou n sel , ci t i n g t h e un - cros s- exam i n ed
n ature of

t h e hea rsay st atem en t s, m oved fora m i st ri al
. Th e t ri alcourtden i ed th e m o tio n a n d a llo w e d t h e S ta te t o c o n tin u e it s e x a m in a tio n o f T u c k e r . Itd id
n o t g iv e a lim itin gin s tr u c tio n . T h e S t a t e t h e n m o v e d t o in t r o d u c e t r a n s c r ib e d c o p ie s o f A r t b e r r y ’s st atem en t s and pl ay the recor di n gs t o the j u ry. Jon es’ s cou n sela gain obj ect ed 3
o n he ar s aya n d Co nf r o nt at i o n Cl aus e g r o unds
. The St at e a r gue d t hatt he Lo u i s i a n a S u p r e m e Co u r t d e c i s i o n o n t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g a l l o w e d t he i n trod u cti on of th e re cord ed statem en ts. Italso a rg u ed tha t t h e sta tem en ts shou l d be all ow ed i n t o evi den ce t o bol st er A rtberry’ s credibi l i t y. T h e t ri alcourt ad m i t t ed t h e ev i de nc e . The St at e m ad e us e o f t he s t at e m e nt s dur i ng t he
r e ma i n d e ro f

i t s c a s e - i n - c h i e f

. I t a s k e d T u c k e r t o e x p l a i n h i s t h e o r yo f t h e c r i me based i n part o n A rtberry’ s s t atem en t s, an d T u cker’ s r espon se r el i ed alm ost Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

O therwitnesses forthe St ate provided circu mstanti al evidence a gainst Jones. Mary 4 Gums, Jones’s girlfrien d atthe ti me of the shooting , testified that Jone s telepho ned her after the murder an d asked herto givehis l awyer’s phonenumber toa witness who lived next door to the murder scene— viz. , to Artb erry . She did so; she later cont acte d Artb erry and put him in touch with Jones . Gum s als o st ated that sheask ed Jone s wheth er he had killedanybody, an d th at h e re sp on de d b ysaying“Do n’ta sk
. . . no ques tio ns. ” Gelan dr aBru e, whos e credib ilitya s awitnes s w a s highlyqu es tion ab le , see JonesII I , F
. S up p . 2 d at 8 07 n.29 , testified th at Martinca me toh er house lookingto buy crack on thenight of the murder, b ut that sheturned him away . After Martinreturned toh er house with Artb erry , shestated, she saw Jones pullup ina blu e Grand Prix with anotherin dividual, saw Jones and Artb erryspeak for about te n minutes, and saw Martin and Artberry drive in the directionof Artb erry’s house, followed b y the Grand Prix. O nlyArtberry’s recorded stateme nts identifie d Jones as adru g de aler orp rovidedamotive for the crim e. 7 e x c l u s iv e l yo n t h e r e c o r d e d s t a t e m e n t s . T h e j u r yc o n v i c t e dJ o n e s o f s e c o nd- 4 d e g r e e m u r d e r . A ft er h e w a s f

ou n d g u ilty a n dsen ten ced , Jo n es a p p ea l ed to t h e sta te in te r m e d ia t e a p p e lla te co u r t. T h a t c o u r t r e c o g n iz e dth a t “ th e S ta te p r im a r ily
u sed the reco rd ed sta te m en ts t o b olster i ts case ag a i n st de fen d a n t. ” Jon es II, 841 So. 2d at 975. I trej ect ed the t w o m a in r a tion al es adva n ced at t ri alf or a d m it t in gth e e v id e n c e : fi r s t , t h a tt h e e v id e n c e c o u ld c o m e in a s p a r to f T u c k e r ’s
e x p la n a tio n o f h o w h e in v e s tig a te dth e cr im e , i d. a t9 74 , a nd s e c o nd, t hatt he st ate s u prem e court ’ s deci si on abou tt h e sup pressi on hea ri n g t est i m on y al so a llo w e dth e in tr o d u c tio n o f th e re c o r d e ds ta te m e n ts , i d. a t 9 7 5
. Th e a ppel l at e c our thel d, how eve r , t hat t he r ec or ded s t at em ent s c oul d be adm i t t ed, purs uant t o Loui si ana C ode of E vi d en c e a r t i c l e 8 01( D ) ( 1) (b) , “ as consi st en t st atem en t s i n t en ded t o rebu t an exp ress or i m pl i ed c h a rg e against [A rtbe rry ] of recen t fab ri ca ti on o r im p rop er i n fl u en ce or m otive . ” I d. ( al t erat i on i n or i gi nal) ( quo t at i o n o m i t t e d)

. At t ac ks o n Ar tbe r r y’ s m o t iva t i o ns a nd
c r e dibi l i t y i n de fe ns e c o uns e l ’ s o pe ni ng s t at e m e nta nd t hr o ugh o utt he t r i al , t he
cou rt rea son ed , “all ow ed the S tate t o use A rtbe rry ’ s p ri or re cord ed statem en ts Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

After granting

h abe as relief, the district court appointed the Federal Public Defen der 5 torep re se nt J oneso napp eal tothisc ourt
.

The C onfrontationC lau se b enefits Jone s, a st at e defendant, because the Sixth 6 Ame n dm ent isincorp orate d a gain stth e st ate s throu ghth e Fourt eenthAme n dm ent. See, e.g. , Johns on v. Puckett , 1 7 6F .3 d 8 0 9 , 8 2 0( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 9). 8 a s a re h a b i l i tative m ea su re.” I d. a t 9 7 6
. L o u is ia n a C o d e o f E v id e n c e a r tic le 801 ( D ) ( 1) (b) exem pts as non - h earsay a pri or s t atem en t by a d ecl aran tw h en

“ [ t ] h e decl aran tt est i f i es att h e t ri alor h eari n ga n d is su bj ectt o cr osse xa m i nat i o n c o nc e r ni ng t he s t at e m e nt , an d t h e sta t e m e nti s . . . [ c ] o ns i s t e nt
w i t h hi s t est i m on y an d i s of fered t o rebut an exp ress or i m pl i ed cha rge against h i m of rece n t fa b ri ca ti on or i m p rop er i n fl u en ce or m otive . ” T h e sta te ap p ell a te
c o ur tdi d no ta ddr e s s t he a r t i c l e ’ s re qui r e m e ntt hatt he dec l ar ant“ t e s t i f [y] a tt he t ri alor h eari n g”— i
. e. , at t h e t ri ali t sel f

— w h ere t h e decl aran tw ou l d be “subj ect t o cr oss- exam i n ati on concerni n g t h e st atem en t
. ” Th e L ou i si an a S u prem e C ou rt
a ffi r m e d w ith o u t a w r itt e n o p in io n . S t atev. Jon es , 854 So. 2d 345 (La. 2003) (ta b le). 3. Habe as pro c e e di ngs J o n e s ’ s s ta te a p p lic a tio n fo rp o s t-c o n v i cti on re lie f w a s d e n ie da t e a c h le v e l. A f t erex haust i ng hi s st at e po st
- c onvi c t i on r em edi es , h e f i l ed a pro se§ 2254 habeas c or pus pe t i t i on i n t he E as t er n D i st r i c tof L oui si ana. I n a l engt hy r ul i ng,

5 t he di s t r i c t c o ur t c o nc l ude d t hat t he s t at e t r i al c o ur t ad m i t t e d an d u sed A rtbe rry ’ s statem en ts f or th eir t ru th , w h i ch i m p l i ca ted Jo n es’ s S i xth A m en dm en tri gh ts an d tr i ggered a C on f rontat i on C l au se ana l ysi s un der O h io
v . R o b er ts , 448 U
. S

. 56 ( 198 0) , t h e cl earl y est abli shed l aw i n pl ace at t h e t i m e of t he r e l e va nts t at e c o ur tde c i s i o n. Jon es III, 601 F. Supp. 2d at787- 88, 804- 06; 6
s e eW ho r t o n v . Bockti ng , 54 9 U
. S

. 40 6 , 41 6 ( 2 0 0 7 ) (ho l d i n g th a t C r aw f or d v. Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

9 W ash i ngt on , 541 U
. S. 36 ( 2004) , di d not announ c e a “ w at er she d r ul e” of c r i m i nal proced u re su ch that i tcoul d be ap pl i ed ret roact ivel y)

. Th e di st ri ctcourt
con cl u d ed tha t t h e a d m i ssion of th e reco rd ed s tatem en ts d i dn ot be a r ad eq u a te i n di ci a of

rel i abil i t y u n der R o b er ts an d d i d n otfal lw i t h i n a “ f i rm l y root ed h ea rsa y e xc ep ti on . ” Jon es III, 6 0 1 F . S u p p . 2 da t 8 0 5 -0 6 ; see R o b er ts , 44 8 U
. S. at 66. I tf

u rt h er c on cl u d e d t h at t h e adm i ssi on of t h e st atem en t s w as not h a r m le s s e r r o r . Jon es III, 6 0 1 F . S u p p . 2 d a t8 0 6 -0 8 . I ts e ta s id e J o n e s ’s
c onvi c t i on and s ent enc e a nd o r der ed t he St at e t o ei t her r et r y Jo nes w i t hi n 120 d a y s o rd is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t a g a in s t h im
. I d. a t 8 0 9
. T h e S t at e a ppe al e d. I ta r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y r e vi e w i ng t h e st ate ap pel l ate court’ s ap pl i cat i on of st ate evi den ce l aw ; t h at t h e adm i ssi on of t he s t at em ent s di d notvi ol at e Jones ’ s C onf r ont at i on C l ause r i ght s; and t hat
an y en sui n g errorw as ha rm l ess. Th e State a lso argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt l ac ke d a ut ho r i t y t o o r de rt he di s m i s s alo f t he i ndi c t m e nta ga i ns tJ o ne s i f t he S ta te fa ils to re tr yh im w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW In a h abea s ap pea l , this cou rtrevi ew s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n gs of

fact f o rc l e a re r r o ra n d i t s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w de no vo , app l yi n g t h e sam e st an da rd of
r e v ie w th a t t h e d is tr ic t co u r t a p p lie dto th e s ta te co u r t d e c is io n . G eig erv. Ca in , 5 4 0 F
. 3 d 30 3 , 30 7 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 8 ). T h e A n tit e r r o ri sm an dE ff ective D ea th P e n a lt yA c to f 1 9 9 6 (“A E D P A” ) g o v e r n e dth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s r e v ie w o f J o n e s ’s peti t i on . U n der A E D P A , w h en a federal h abea s peti t i on er’ s cl a im h a s b e en adj udi c at e d o n t he m e r i t s i n a s t at e pr o c e e di ng, a fe de r al c o ur t m us t de fe rt o t he
s t a t e c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n u n l e s s i t s a dj u d i c a t i o n o f t h e c l a i m: Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

Here , st ateh ab ea s relief wa s denie d without awritte nopinion . But, b ec au sewe 7 review only“the reason ablene ss of the statecourt’s ulti mate decision, the AE DPA inquiry is not altered when, as in this case, state hab eas relief i s denied without an opinion .” Schae tzle v. C ock re ll , 34 3 F .3d 4 40, 443(5th Cir. 20 03). I n this situation , the court “(1) assumes that the state court applie d the proper ‘cle arlyestabli shed Federal law’; and (2) thendetermine s wh eth eritsdecis ionwa s ‘co ntr aryto’or ‘anobj ectivelyunre a so n ab leapp licationof’th at law.” Id
. 10 ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i si on t hatw as c ont r ar y t o, ori nvolved an unreas onabl e a ppl i c at i on o f, c l ear l y e st abl i sh ed F ede r all aw , as determ i n ed byt h e Su prem e C ou rtof t h e U n i t ed S t ates; or (2 ) r e s u l t e d in a d e c is io n th a t w a s b a s e do n a n u n r e a s o n a b le de t e r m i nat i o n o f

t he fac t s i n l i ghto f

t he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n t he St at e c our tpr oc ee di ng. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ); see R oge r s v . Q uar t e r m an , 5 5 5 F .3d 4 8 3 , 4 8 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). “As ta te co u r t’s d e c is io n is co n tr a r y to c le a r lye s ta b lis h e dfe d e r a l la w if it ap pl i es a r u l e th a t c o n tradic t s t h e governing l aw setf ort h i n Su prem e C ou rt
ca ses , ” Fi el d s v. T

h ale r , 5 8 8 F .3d 2 7 0 , 2 7 3 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (q u o t a t io n om itted ),
o ri f t h e s t a t e c o u r t “ d e c i d e [ s ] a c a s e d i f fe r e n t l y t h a n t h e U n i t e dS t a t e s S u p r e me C ou rt pre viou sly de ci d ed a ca se o n a s et of ne a rl y ide n ti ca lfa cts, ” T ay lorv. Ca in , 5 4 5 F .3 d 3 2 7 , 3 3 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W h e n a p p ly in gth e “u n r e a s o n a b le 7 ap pl i cat i on ” cl au se, “ a court m ay gran tha beas rel i ef i f t h e st ate c ou rtm i sapp l i ed th e relev a n t l eg a lpr i n ci p l es to th e facts. ” T aylor , 5 45 F. 3da t3 34
. Bec aus e no U n i t ed S t ates S u prem e C ou rtcase h as fact s nearl y i den t i calt o t h ose bef ore us, J o n e s ’ s a p p e a l is g o v e r n e d b yA E D P A ’ s “u n r e a s o n a b le a p p lic a tio n ” p r o n g . S ee i d. “ T h e q u estion u n d er A E D P Ais n ot w h eth er a fed era lco u rt beli ev es th e sta te
c our t ’ s determ i nat i on w as i nco r r ec tbutw het hert hatdet er m i nat i on w as u n rea s o n a b le— a su b stan ti a l l y h i gh er th resh old.” Sc hr i r o v . Landr iga n , 550 U .S . 4 6 5 , 4 7 3 (2 0 0 7 ). Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

11 DI S CU S S I ON A . W h et h er t h e dis t ri ctcou rterr ed by revi ew i n g a st ate evi de n t i ary r ul i ng The St at e a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tw e ntb e yo nd t he pe r m i s s ibl e s c o pe of fede r alhabeas r evi ew by f i ndi ng, c ont r ar y t o t he Loui si ana c our t s, t hat A rtberry’ s s t atem en t s w ere h earsay. T h e S t ate contend s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt
s h o u ld h a v e d e fe r r e d to th e s ta te co u r ts ’e v id e n tia r yru lin g s . T h e State i s c orrect th a t federalcourt s s i t t i n g i n ha beas do n otrevi ew s ta te c o u r ts ’a p p lic a tio n o f s ta te e v id e n c e la w . S ee Cast i l lo v. Joh n son , 141 F. 3d 2 1 8 , 2 2 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); Merc ad o v. Massey , 5 3 6 F .2d 1 0 7 , 1 0 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 7 6 ). H ere , tho u gh , the distri ct cou rt m a d e clear th a t i t w a s n ot rev i ew i n g th e sta te
e v id e n t i a r yru lin g s th e m s e lv e s . Jon es III, 6 0 1 F . S u p p . 2 da t 7 8 7
. In s te a d , it
corr ect l y asked w h et h er th e s tate c ou rt ’ s app l i cat i on of st ate evi den ce r u l es vi o l at e d Jo ne s ’ s c o ns t i t ut i o nal r i ght s . Reg ar dl e s s o f ho w a s t at e c o urtapp l i es st at e evi denc e r ul es , a fede r al habeas c our t has an i ndependent duty to d e te r m in e w h e th e rth a t a p p lic a tio n v io la te s th e C o n s tit u tio n . SeeE stel le v. McG u i re , 5 0 2 U .S . 6 2 , 6 8 (1 9 9 1 ); seealso S lovi k v. Y ate s , 5 5 6 F
. 3 d7 4 7 , 75 5 ( 9 th C i r . 2009) (hol di ng t hata st at e co urt ’ s dec i si on base d on st at e e vi denc e l aw w as
n o n e th e le s s a n o b je c tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b le a p p lic a ti o n o f fe d e r a l la w ); Frat t a v. Q uar t e r m an , 53 6 F
. 3 d 4 8 5 , 5 0 2 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( “[T ]he fac t t h a t t h e sta tem en ts
w e r e a dm i s s ibl e und e ra s t at e - l aw he ar s ay e xc e pt i o n . . . di d no tdi s po s e o f t he C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e is s u e . . . .”). A dop t i on of

t h e State’ s argu m e n t w ou l d i m m u n i ze const i t u t i on alerr or from rev i ew w h en the erro r i s related , h ow ev er incid en tall y, t o a state
e vi de nt i ar y r ul i ng. Tha ti s no tt he l aw. “ [ T ] h e a dm i s s ibi l i t y ve lno n o f t he
e vi de nc e und er st ate l aw i s no tde t e r m i nat ive o f a fe de r al l y pr o t e c t e d r i ght Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

12 cog n i za b l e on h a b ea s corp u s. ” Hi l ls v. Hend ers on , 529 F .2d 3 9 7 , 401 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 7 6 ) (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d ); seealso Pa x ton v. W ard , 19 9 F
. 3 d11 9 7 , 12 0 8 ( 1 0 th C i r. 199 9)

. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot err by ru l i n g on t h e C on f rontat i on C l au se is s u e ra is e d b yth e s ta te tr ia l co u r t’s a p p lic a tio n o f L o u is ia n a e v id e n c e la w . B. W het her t he adm i s s i on o f t he r e c or ded s t at em ent s vi ol at ed Jo n es’ s 6t h A m en dm en tri gh t s un de r O h io v . R o b er ts T h e S ta te a r g u e s th a t A r tb e r r y ’ s re c o r d e ds ta te m e n ts w e r e p r o p e r ly
a d m itt e d a s n o n -h e a r s a yp u r s u a n t t o L o u is ia n a C o d e o f E v id e n c e a r tic le 80 1(D ) ( 1) (b)

. I tal s o cl ai m s t hatt he L o ui s i anaSupr e m e C o ur tde c i s i o n ho l di ng th a t A r tb e r r y ’ s c r o s s -e x a m in e ds u p p r e s s io n h e a r in gte s tim o n yw a s a d m is s ib le al so authori zed the ad m i ssi on of t h e u n - cros s- exam i n ed recor ded st atem en t s. F or t h e reasons expl ai n ed below , both argu m en t s fai l
. Th e di st ri ctcourt
c o r r e c t l y f

o und al lt he e l e m e nt s o f a Conf r o nt at i o n Cl au se v i o l at i o n und e rt he ap pl i cabl e O h io v
. R o b er ts s t and ar d.

“ I n al lcr i m i n a lp r os ec ut i ons , t he ac c use d s hal lenj oy t he r i ght
. . . t o b e c o nf r o nt e d wi t h t he w i t ne s s e s a ga i ns thi m . ” U
. S. C ONST
. am e nd. VI
. The confr on t ati on ri gh ti s onl y i m pl i cat ed w h en t h e ou t-of- court st atem en ti s used to p r o v e th e tr u th o f th e m a tt e ra s s e r te d
. T enn ess ee v. S t ree t , 471 U
. S. 409, 414 ( 198 5)

. B ef

ore C raw f

ord v. W

ash i ngt on , 541 U
. S

. 36 ( 200 4) , t h e C on f rontat i on C l au se barred the u se of a n a bsen td ecl aran t ’ s ou t
- of

- court, un - cros s- exam i n ed h earsay st atem en t s, w i t h cer t ain e x cep t i on s di scussed bel ow . U n der t h e preC ra w f ordr e gi m e a ppl i c ab l e he r e , t he Cl aus e a l l o w s t he us e o f t e s t i m o ny f

rom u n a v a ila b le w itn e s s e s th a t is “m a r k e dw ith s u c h tr u s tw o r th in e s s th a t t h e r e is
n o m ateria l d e p art u re f rom t h e reason of

t h e gen eral[ C on f

rontat i on C l au se]
ru l e.” R o b er ts , 4 4 8 U .S

. a t 6 5 (qu o ta tion om itted ). Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

Additio nally , if the constitutional error is h armle ss, theh abe as petition must b e 8 de nie d. SeeO ’

N e a lv. McAninch , 51 3 U .S. 43 2, 4 35 (199 5). As explained infra , the St ate waived this argu ment. 13 [W ] hen a hear sa y de c l ar anti s notpr es entf orc r os s- exam i nat i on at t r i al , t he C o nf

r o nt at i o n Cl aus e no r m al l y r e qui r e s a s ho w i ng t hathe is u n a v a ila b le
. E v e n th e n , h is s ta te m e n t is a d m i s s ib le o n lyif it bears adeq u ate “i n di ci a of rel i abil i t y. ” R el i abili t y can be i n ferred w ith o u t m o r e in a ca s e w h e r e th e e v id e n c e fa lls w ith in a fir m ly r oo t ed hea r sa y e xc ept i on . I n ot herc as es , t he e vi denc e m ustbe excl u ded , at l east absen ta show i n g of parti cul ari zed gu aran t ees of t rustw ort h i n ess. I d. at 66. A rtberry w as an un ava i l able decl aran tw h o gave test i m on i alevi den ce butw as no tpr e s e ntf o rc r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n a tt r i al
. The qu est i ons b e f o r e t he
c o ur t , t he n, a r e : ( 1) w he t he rt he r e c o r de d s t at e m e nt s w e re u sed t o pr o ve t he tru th of th e m a tters the y a sse rted ; an d( 2 ) w h eth er th eybe a r th e req u i sit e i ndi c i a o f

r el i abi l i t y, i ncl udi ng w het hert hey fal lw i t hi n a “ f i r m l y r oo t ed hea r sa y e x c e p tio n .” 8 T h e d i stri ct cou rt correctly f ou n dtha t A rtbe rry ’ s statem en ts w ere u sed to p r o v e th e tr u th o f w h a t t h e ya s s e r te d , a s d idth e L o u is ia n a C o u r t o f A p p e a l,
w h i ch recogni zed that “ [ i] tapp ears t h e State pri m ari l y u sed t h e rec orded statem en ts t o b olster i ts case ag a i n st [th e] de fen d a n t. ” Jon es II, 841 So. 2d at 975. The s ubst ance of A r tber r y’ s st at em ent s w as r el at ed t hro ugh D et ec t ive Tuc ke r , a nd t he n t he st at e m e nt s t he m s e lve s w e r e pl ay e d t o t he j ur y. The s e c o nd
s t at e m e nt i nc l ude d a de t ai l e d de s c r i pt i o n o f t he e ve nt s l e ad i ng up to t he sho ot i ng. Th at des c r i pt i on i ncl uded, m os t not abl y, A r tber r y’ s as se r ti on t hat M ar t i n w as s hotf

orgivi ng Jones and hi s ac c om pl i c e aone - dol l arbi l lr at hert han
a tw e n ty -d o lla rb ill fo ra ro c k o f c r a c k co c a in e , a n dth a t h e w a s s h o t w h ile
s e ar c hi ng f

o rt he t w e nt y- do l l arb i l li n hi s c ar— e ve n a f t e rhe ha d r e t ur ne d t he Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

Although the defen se di d not reque st a limitin g instruction , it is likelyth at anysuch 9 instructionwoul d h ave b eenfutilegiven that the statements bore directlyonJones’s culpabilityan d were only marginallyrelevant—if at all—toany purported non-hearsay purpose . Eve n if the statements w ere admissib le under Loui sian a article 8 01(D)(1)(b), th eir assertedcre dibility -bol sterin g valuewas substantiallyoutweighed bythe danger of unfair prej udic e. Itis difficult to i maginea limiting in struction that could curesuch prej udic e. Specifically , Tucker testified th at his theory of how the shootingtook place wa s that, 10 “[w]hilereachinginto his vehicle to retrieve the twenty -doll ar bill, the victim wa s shotwith his arm extended.” 14 crack. A rtberry ha d n otdescribed the dru g dea l , the d i spu t e over t h e m on ey, or th e d e ta ils o f th e s h o o tin gd u r in gh is s u p p r e s s io n h e a r in gte s tim o n y . T h e j u ry w a s n ever i n st ructed t o i gn ore t h e st atem en t s as t est i m on y of h ow t h e cr i m e occ u rred and t o consi der t h em o n ly f or non - h earsay pu rposes. Jon es III, 6 01 F. Sup p. 2 d at 800. W i t ho uta n i ns t r uc t i o n t o t he c o nt r ar y, t he
c o ur tc anno ta s s um e t hatt he j ur y w i l lnotm i s us e t he s t at e m e nt s b y c o ns i de r i ng t h e m fo rm o r e th a n th e irp u r p o r te dn o n -h e a r s a yp u r p o s e . Uni t e d St a t e s v. W alker , 14 8 F
. 3 d 51 8 , 52 4 -25 ( 5 th C i r. 19 9 8 ), a b rog at e d on ot hergrounds by T exas v. Cobb , 5 3 2 U .S

. 1 6 2 (20 0 1 ). 9 M osti m portantl y, t h e prosecuti on ’ s u se of t h e st atem en t s w as not l i m i t ed t o t h e pu t ative pu rpose of shori n g u p A rtberry’ s credibi l i t y, or i n deed t o an y of th e ju s tific a tio n s g iv e n a t t r ia l fo rth e ira d m is s io n . A fte rt h e tr ia l co u r t h e ld t h at t h e st atem en t s w ere adm i ssibl e t o show how D et ect ive T u cker perf orm ed h i s i n ve sti ga ti on a n d form u l a ted h i s th eo ryo f th e crim e— a u se th a t, the state ap pe l l at e c o ur t he l d, i m pe r m i s s ibl y r ai s e d t he s i gnif i c antpo s s ibi l i t y t hat“ ‘ t he j u ry [w ou l d] consi der t h e st atem en t f or t h e t ruth of

t h e m att er a s s e r te d ’”— D e te c tiv e T u c k e rre l i e do n t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s t o e x p l a in h i s t h eory of

t h e cr i m e. Jon es II, 841 So. 2d at974 ( quot i ng St at ev. Br o adway ,

10 Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 14 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

15 7 5 3 S o . 2 d8 0 1 , 8 0 9 ( L a . 2 0 0 0 )). T h u s , A r tb e r r y ’ s s ta te m e n ts w e r e u s e dfo rth e ir tru th to p u t b efore th e j u rya n a rra tive of th e crim e th a t w a s oth erw i se a b sen t. I f a j ur y i s a s ke d t o i nfe rt hata s t at e m e ntpur po r t e dl y i nt r o duc e d f o rno nh earsay pu rposes al so s erves as proof o f w h a ti tcontai n s, t h en “ t h e evi den ce w ou l d h ave been h e a rsay; an d becau se [t h e decl aran t ] w as not avai l able f or c r o s s -e x a m in a tio n , C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e con cern s w ou ldh a v e b e e n im p lic a te d .” S t ree t , 471 U
. S

. at 414
. H ere, t h e com bi n ati on of t h e pl aying of t h e rec ordi n gs, Tuc ke r ’ s t e s t i m o ny ab o utAr tbe r r y’ s s t at e m e nt s dur i n g t h e e ar l y m o r ni ng in te r v ie w s , a n d T u c k e r ’ s la te rre lia n c e o n th e s ta te m e n ts to e x p l a in h is
u n d e r s t a n d in go f e x a c t lyh o w th e s h o o t in go c c u r r e d , s h o w s th a tA r tb e r r y ’s h e a r s a ys ta te m e n ts w e r e a d m itt e da n du s e dfo rth e irtr u th
. S ee J on es III, 601 F
. S u p p . 2 d a t 8 0 4 ; se e a lso T ay lorv. Ca in , 545 F. 3d 327, 335 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) ( “ P ol i ce of

f i cers can n ot , t h rough t h ei r t ri alt est i m on y, ref er t o t h e substance of
s ta te m e n ts g iv e n to th e m b yn o n te s tify in gw itn e s s e s in th e c o u r s e o f th e ir in v e s tig a tio n , w h e n th o s e s ta te m e n ts in c u lp a te th e d e fe n d a n t.” ). The s t at e c o ur tfai l e d t o c o ns i de rt he Conf r o nt at i on C l aus e i m pl i c at i o ns of t h e use of A rtb e rry’ s t est i m on y. Th at l ap se w ou l d n otha ve been consti tu t i on alerr or i f t h e t est i m on y bore “ pa rt i cul ari zed gu aran t ees of tru stw orth i n ess ” or i f i t f ell“w i th i n a fi rm l y rooted h ea rsa y e xc ep ti on . ” R o b er ts , 448 U
. S

. at 66. B ecau se i tdi d n ei t h er, t h e u se of A rtberry’ s t est i m on y vi ol ated J o n e s ’ s S i x t h A me n d me n tr i g h tt o c o n f r o n tt h e w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s th i m.

“ [A] f i n d i n go f

p a r t i c u l a r i z e dg ua r a nt e e s o f t r us t wor t h i n e s s mu s tb e s h o wn f r o m t he t o t al i t y o f t he c i r c um s t anc e s t hat s ur r o und t he m ak i n g of t he statem en t, an d m a y n ot be ba sed on oth er ev i d en ce a t t ri a ltha t m a y co rrob ora te th e sta tem en t. ” Fr at t a v . Q uar t e r m an , 5 3 6 F .3d 4 8 5 , 5 0 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 15 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

16 A rtberry gave confl i ct i n g st atem en t s w h i l e bei n g qu est i on ed at a pol i ce s t ati on i n t he e ar l y m o r ni ng ho ur s a f t e ra dr ug- r e l at e d s ho o t i ng. By h i s ow n a dm i s s i o n, he had be en w i t h t he vi c t i m unt i lt he s hoot i ng, w h i ch oc c urr ed af t erhe had h elpe d the victi m l oca te cra ck coca i n e. T h e s h oo ti n g o ccu rred adj a cen t t o A rtberry’ s propert y, an d A rtbe rr y w as f ou n d n ear t h e sc en e of t h e cr i m e j u st af t erw ards. A dd i t i on al l y, A rtberry gave tw o conf l i ct i n g st atem en t s, both of
w h i ch excu l pa t ed h im o f an y w rongd oi n g. W h ere “t h e decl aran tm ak es accusatory s t atem en ts t h at i n cul pa t e an ot h er” t o non - u n dercover pol i ce pe r sonnela f

t e ra c r i m e , “ t he r e a l w ay s e xi s t s t he s t r o ng po s s ibi l i t y t hatt he d e cla ra n t h a s th e d e sire to s h ift o r s p re a db la m e , cu rr yfav o r, a v e n g e h im se lf, or d ive rt atten ti on to an oth er.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Flores , 9 8 5 F
. 2 d7 7 0 , 7 8 0 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( q u o t a t i o n o m it t e d ). N o t h in ga b o u tth e fa c t s s u r r o u n d in gJ a m e s ’s
recor ded stat em en t s su ggests , l etal on e est abli shes, a parti cul ari zed gu aran t ee o f tr u s tw o r th in e s s . S econd , as t h e di st ri ctcourtcor rect l y deci ded , L ou i si an a C ode of E vi den ce ar t i c l e 8 01( D ) ( 1) (b) i s nota f i r m l y r oo t ed hea r sa y e xc ept i on. W het hera hea r sa y e x c e p tio n is fir m ly r o o te d fo r th e p u r p o s e s o f a C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e a n a ly s is is
a q u e s tio n o f fe d e r a l, n o t s ta te , la w . L ill y v. V irg in ia , 5 2 7 U .S

. 1 1 6 , 1 2 5 (19 9 9 ). A hea r s aye xc e pt i o n i s f i r m l y r o o t e d i f, “ i n l i gh t of l o ngs t and i ng j udi c i ala nd l egi sl ative exp eri en ce, i tres t [ s] [ on ] such [a] s o li d fou n da t i o[ n ] t h at adm i ssi on o f v i r t ual l y anye vi de nc e w i t hi n [i t ] c o m po r t s w i t h t he s ubs t anc e o f t he
con sti tu ti on a lpr otection
. ” I d. a t1 26 ( al t e r at i o ns i n o r i gi nal) ( quo t at i o ns om i tted). C on d i ti on s th a t ha ve pr ov ed , ov er ti m e, “to rem ov e a l ltem p tati on to fal s e ho o d, a nd t o e nf o r c e a s s t r i c ta n a dhe r e nc e t o t he t r ut h a s w o ul d t he Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 16 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

Here, bycontrast, allof Jones’s statements were made after a motive tolie arose. 11 17 o bl i gat i o n o f

a n o at h a nd c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n a tt r i al , ” a r e f i r m l y r o o t e d. I d. (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d ). T h e qu est i on w h et h er a p ri or c on si st en tst atem en ti s a f i rm l y root ed h earsay excepti on a ri ses rarel y, i f ever: i n t h e t yp i calcase i n w h i ch such
e vi de nc e i s i nt r o duc e d, t he de c l ar anti s o n t he st an d a nd h i s pr i o rc o ns i s t e nt st at em ent , abo utw hi c h he c an be c r os s- exam i ned, c om es in as a hea r sa y e x e m p tio n . W e h o ld th a t, e v e n if ap r i o r co n s is te n t s ta te m e n t w e r e n o r m a lly consi dered to be i m bu ed w i t h t h e sam e t rustw o rth i n ess as hea rsay adm i t t ed
u n der ot h er f

i rm l y root ed except i on s, t h e rul e as ap pl i ed i n L ou i si an a w ou l d n ot qua l i f y. I n T

om e v. Un ited S t ate s , t he Supr e m e Cour the l d t hat , und e rt he Feder alR ul es of

E vi denc e, a pri orc ons i st ents t at em entuse d t o r ebuta c harge
o f im p r o p e rm o tiv e m u s t h a v e b e e n m a d e b e fo r e th e im p r o p e rm o tiv e a lle g e d ly
ar os e. 513 U
. S. 150, 160 ( 1995)

. The p r e- m ot ive r equi r em ent , i texpl ai ned, w as

11

“ [ t ] he pr e va i l i ng c o m m o n- l aw r ul e f o rm o r e t han a c e nt ur y be f o r e a do pt i o n o f

t he F ed era lR u l es o f E vid en ce.” I d. at 15 6. Lo ui s i ana ’ s pr i o rc o ns i s t e nts t at e m e nt
r u le h a s n o s u c h re q u ir e m e n t. F o rL o u is ia n a a r tic le 8 0 1 to b e e lig ib le a s a fir m ly root ed h earsay excepti on , i tcann otcontr aven e m ore t h an 100 years of com m on la w e v id e n c e p r a c tic e . Thus , t he s t at e t r i alco ur tal l o w e d t he St at e t o us e t he un- c r o s s - e xa m i ne d, t e s t i m o ni als t at e m e nt s o f a n a bs e ntpa r t y f

o rt he i rt r ut h a gains tJ o ne s . The st atem en ts w ere not m arked by pa rt i cul ari zed gu aran t ees of t rustw ort h i n ess an d d i d n otfal lun der a f i rm l y root ed h earsay excepti on . U n der R o b er ts , t he
a d m i ssion of th e record ed statem en ts viol a ted Jo n es’ s cl ea rl y e stab l i sh ed S i xth Am e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c o nf r o ntt he w i t ne s s e s a ga i ns thi m . M ore o ve r , t he Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 17 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

18 L ou i si an a courts ’fai l u re t o rec ogn i ze t h e vi ol ati on w as obj e c t ivel y u n reasona bl e. T h i s i s n ot a cl ose case. T h e vi ol ati on of Jon es’ s r i gh t s att ri alshou l d h ave been
o bv i o us , a nd t he fai l ur e t o c o r r ectitw as unr e as o nab l e e ve n und e rt he d e fe r e n tia l § 2 2 5 4 (d ) s ta n d a r d
. Cf

. T aylor , 545 F
. 3dat335

- 36 (ho l di ng t hatt he
s t at e c o ur tunr e as o nab l y ap pl i e d O h io v
. R o b er ts ); D orchy v. Jon es , 398 F. 3d 783, 7 8 8

- 9 1 ( 6 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (s a m e ); Mur i l lo v . Fr ank , 4 02 F. 3d7 86 , 7 92 ( 7t h Ci r. 20 05 ) ( af

f i r m i ng gr anto f

ha be as a nd ho l di ng t hat“ [ a] s t at e m e nt , m ad e dur i ng i nt e r r o ga t i o n a nd b l am i ng s o m e o ne e l s e , . . . is too u n re l i ab l e t o s upp l y t he

‘ p a r tic u l a r i z e d g u a r a n te e s o f tr u s tw o r th in e s s ’th a t u n til C raw f ordc oul d have
s u p p o r te d a d m is s ib ility .”); G ui dryv. D r e t ke , 397 F. 3d 306, 329- 30 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) ( af f i rm i n g a gran tof h abea s based i n pa rt on a C on f rontat i on C l au se vi ol ati on u n der O h io v
. R o b er ts ). T h e S tate’ s rem a i n i n g a rg u m en ts t h a t t h e a d m i ssion of th e s ta te m en ts
w as no ne t he l e s s pr o pe ra r e unav ai l i ng. I tf i r s tc o nt e nds t hatt he de c i s i o n o f t he L ou i sian a S u prem e C ou rtal l ow i n g t h e adm i ssi on of A rtberry’ s s u pp ress i on h eari n g t est i m on y al so a l l o w e d the ad m i ssi on of A rtberry’ s r ecorded st atem en t s. T h i s argum en tha s been rej ect ed byeach court t h at has consi dered i t , an d f or g o o d re a s o n . Jon es III, 6 0 1 F. Su p p . 2 da t7 9 0; Jon es II, 841 So. 2d at975 (“[ T ]h e r e is n o th in g in th e [s ta te s u p r e m e c o u r t’s ] o p in io n th a t c a n b e re a s o n a b ly i nt er pre t ed as s anct i oni ng t he use of t he r ec or ded s t at em ent s by t he St at e a s di r e c te vi de nc e . ” )

. T he Lo ui s i anaSupr e m e Cour tc am e t o no s uc h c o nc l us i o n. Itnoted i n passi n g t h at Jones’ s d efen se cou n sel , w h en cross- exam i n i n g A rtberry dur i ng t he s upp r e s s i o n he ar i ng, “ unc o ve r e d the gi s to f Ar tbe r r y’ s s e c o nd
u n d i sclosed statem en t. ” Jon es I, 79 1 So

. 2d at 62 7. Thi s , o f c o ur s e , does n ot
m ea n tha t A rtbe rryw a s cross -exa m i n ed ab ou t t h e sta tem en t. W h i l e th e sta te Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 18 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

19 sup re m e cou rtal so expl ai n ed that, pu rsuan tt o L ou i si an a C ode of E vi den ce ar t i c l e 8 06 , t he de fe ns e c o ul d i nt r o duc e Ar tbe r r y’ s s t at e m e nt s t o und e r c utt he
r e lia b ilityo f A r tb e r r y ’ s s u p p r e s s io n h e a r in gte s tim o n y , i d. a t 6 2 8 , a t n o p o in t d id i thol d, or even i m pl y, t h at t h e State coul d u se the recor ded st atem en t s agai n st J o n e s in its ca s e -in -c h ie f. T h e S ta te b rin g s tw o a d d iti o n a l ch a ll e n g e s to th e g ra n t of h a b e a s r e li e f. F i rs t, itasser t s t h at, regardl ess of w h et h er t h ei r adm i ssi on w ou l d otherw i se v io la te J o n e s ’ s C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e r ig h t, A r tb e r r y ’ s s ta te m e n ts w e r e p r o p e r ly ad m i t t e d b e c aus e J o ne s ’ s c o uns e li nvi t e d t he e r r o r . Se c o nd, t he St at e c o nt e nds t hatt he adm i ss i on w as h ar m l es s er r or . The St at e w aived bot h ar gum ent s by fai l i n g to ra i se th em be fore th e d i stri ct cou rt. “T h e d o c tr in e o f in v ite d e r r o rp r o v id e s th a t w h e n inje c tio n o f in a d m is s ib le evi den ce i s at t ribu ta b le to t h e act i on s of t h e defen se, t h e defen se c an n otl ater ob j ect to s u ch in vitederro r. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. G ree n , 272 F
. 3d 748 , 754 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d ); s e eals o Un i t e d St at e s v . Shar pe , 996 F. 2d 125, 129 (6th C i r . 1993)

. Th e St at e w aived t hi s ar gum ent by fai l i ng t o r ai se i t i n i ts
m e r it s o p p o s it io n to J o n e s ’s p e t it io n in th e d is t r ic tc o u r t . T h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s opi n i on i n cl u des a f

oot n ot e expl ai n i n g t h e di f ference betw een “open i n g t h e door” to t h e a d m is s io n o f o th e r w is e ir r e le v a n t e v id e n c e a n d“in v ite de r r o r .” Jon es III, 601 F
. Su pp . 2d at 799 n
. 21. Th e d i st ri ctcou rtd i d n otru l e on a n i n vi t ed error argu m en t , how ever, becau se t h e S t ate fai l ed t o m ak e one. “ [ I] f a l i t i gan tdesi res to p r e s e r v e a n a r g u m e n t fo ra p p e a l, th e litig a n t m u s t p r e s s a n dn o t m e r e ly i n ti m a te the a rg u m en t du ri n g th e p roce ed i n gs be fore th e d i stri ct cou rt. ” F D IC
v . Mijalis , 1 5 F .3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 2 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 19 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

20 Fi nal l y, t he St at e a rgues t hatany Conf r ont at i on C l ause vi ol at i on w as har m l e s s b e c aus e t he e vi de nc e a ga i ns tJ o ne s w as s t r o ng andb e c aus e t he
a d mi s s i o n o f

t h e s t a t e me n t s di d no ta d ds i g n i f i c a n t l yt o t h e s t a t e ’ s c a s e . “ On h abea s r evi ew un der A E D P A , t h e prej u di ce of const i t u t i on alerr or in a st atecourt cri m i n alt ri ali s m easu red by the ‘ sub st an t i alan d i nj u ri ou s ef fect[ or in flu e n ce in d e te rm in in gth e ju ry ’ s v e rd ict]’s ta n d a rd of B rec h tv. A brah am son ,” 5 0 7 U .S . 6 1 9 (1 9 9 3 ). T ay lorv. Ca in , 5 4 5 F .3 d3 2 7 , 3 3 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ). W h e n a co u r t is

“ i n vi rtu alequ i poi se as t o t h e ha rm l essness of t h e err or un der t h e Bre c ht stan d a rd , th e cou rt sh ou l d trea t th e error . . . a s i f i t aff ected the ve rd i ct. ” Fry v. P l i ler , 5 5 1 U .S . 1 1 2 , 1 2 1 n .3 (2 0 0 7 ) (o m iss ion in or igin a l) (q u o ta tion om itted );
seealso W

ood s v. Joh n son , 7 5 F .3 d1 0 1 7 , 1 0 2 6 -2 7 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 ). A n e r r o ris harm l es s, h ow eve r , w hen t he e vi denc e o f t he def endant ’ s gui l ti s ove r w hel m i ng. T aylor , 545 F
. 3d at 336
. Th e st ate bears t h e b u rd en of show i n g t h at t h e err or w a s h a r m le s s . S ee Fry , 551 U
. S. at121 n. 3. T h e di st ri ctcourtf ou n d that t h e S t ate w ai ved t h e ha rm l ess error argu m en t
. Th e State di d n otrai se harm l ess errori n i t s respon se to Jones’ s pro seha beas peti t i on . I tbro u g h t u p th e i ssue on l y i n a surrepl y, t o coun t er a separate argum en tby Jon es t h at i s n ot bef ore t h i s court. A rgum en t s r ai sed f or th e fir s t tim e in a r e p lyb r ie f a r e g e n e r a llyw a iv e d
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ja ckson , 4 2 6 F .3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 4 n .2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); It el d, B ernst ei n & A ssoc s. , L L Cv. Han over I ns . G r o up , Sl i p C opy, 2009 W L 2496 5 5 2 , a t *4 ( E
. D
. La. A ug. 12, 2009) ( “ [A ] rgum en t s r ai sed f or the f i rstt i m e i n a R epl y bri ef are w ai ved
. ” )

. Th i s c ou rt
can , i n i t s di scr et i on , consi der t h e ha rm l ess errordefen se su asp o n te
. Un i t ed Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 20 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

The Vonsteen court cited Uni ted States v. Gi ova nnetti , 9 2 8F .2 d 2 2 5( 7 thC ir
. 1 9 9 1 ), 12 for the propositionthatt hea ppell ate court “ordin arily ha[s] the discretion to decide legal issues that are not timelyraised.” 950 F.2d at 109 1. The Gi ova nnettica se co ncluded that the court h ad discretion to overlook thegovernme nt’s fail ure to argue harmless error and undertake a suaspontean alysis. 928F .2d at 2 27.

This court stayed the district court’s ju dgment in an order dated June 5 , 20 09, before 13 the 120days ha d run. 21 S t ate s v. V

on t st een , 950 F
. 2d 108 6, 109 1- 92 (5t h C i r. 1 9 92). B ecau se w e are 12
c o nvi nc e d t hatt he e r r o rhere w as no tha r m l e s s , w e w i l lno ti ndul ge t he opp ort u n i t y t o un dertake a f u l lan al ysi s i n l i gh tof t h e State’ s w ai ver. C . W het her t he di s t r i ctco urter red by or der i ng a condi t i onal di s m i s s alof

t he i ndi c t m e nt T h e last qu estion i s w h eth er t h e dist ri ct cou rt erre d b y o rd erin g th e S tate to d i sm i ss th e ind i ctm en t i f i t fa i l s to re try J on es w i th i n 12 0 da ys . T h e S tate 13 i s c o r r e c tt hatt he por t i o n of t he o r de rr e qui r i ng t he di s m i s s alo f t he i ndi c t m e nt ag ai ns tJ o ne s , r at he rt han r e qui r i ng hi m t o b e s e tf r e e , i s unus ual
. W e c o nc l ude th a t itco n s tit u t e s a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Se eCappsv . Sul l i v an , 13 F. 3d 350, 35 2 ( 10th Ci r . 1 99 3) ( “ I n t he t yp i c alc as e , w e r e vi e w t he f o r m o f j udg m e nt
e n te re d b yth e d istr ict co u rt fo r a n a b u se of d iscr e tion .”)

. In fe d e r a l h a b e a s ca s e s , d is tr ic t c o u r ts h a v e “b r o a dd i s c r e tio n in
con d i ti on i n g a j u d gm en t gra n ti n g h a b ea s reli ef. ” Hilton v. B ra u n sk ill , 4 81 U
. S. 7 7 0 , 77 5 ( 1 9 8 7 ). “F ed era lcou rts are au th orized , u n d er 2 8 U .S .C

. § 22 4 3 , to d i sp ose of h a b ea s corp u s m a tters as law an dj u sti ce re q u i re.” I d. (quotati on om i t t ed)

. Th e typ i c alr em edy i n habeas c or pus i s physi c alr el eas e. “ H abeas
e xi s t s ‘ t o e nf

o r c e t he r i ghto f

pe r s o nall ibe r t y; w he n t hatr i ghti s d en i ed a nd a per so n i s c onf

i ned, the fede r alcour th as the pow erto r el eas e hi m . I ndeed, i thas
n o othe r p o w e r ; . . . itcan on l y acton t h e body of

t h e pet i t i on er. ’” Za law adi a v. Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 21 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

22 A sh cr oft , 371 F. 3d 292, 299 ( 5t h C i r . 2004) ( om i ss i on i n or i gi nal) ( quot i ng Fay v . No ia , 3 7 2 U .S . 3 9 1 , 4 3 0 -3 1 (1 9 6 3 )); seealso Carson v. Joh n son , 112 F. 3d 818, 820 ( 5th C i r. 199 7) ( “Ah abea s p et i t i on . . . i s t h e proper veh i cl e t o seek rel ease f rom c u s to d y .”). T h e p h y s ic a l re le a s e r e q u ir e db yth e w r it, h o w e v e r , is n o t n e c e s s a r ily
unc o ndi t i o nal
. Cour t s ge ne r al l y al l o w fo rt he re l e as e of a pr i s o ne rsubj e c tt o t he
s t at e ’ s r i ghtt o de t ai n hi m o n t he und e r l yi ng i ndi c t m e nt
. Thus , i n I r v i n v . Do wd , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t g r a n te d h a b e a s re lie f b u t n o te dth a t t h e “p e tit io n e ris s till sub j ectt o cust odyun der t h e indic t m en tfi l ed by t h e S t ate .
. . a n d m ay be tri ed
o n th is o ra n o th e rin d ic tm e n t.” 3 6 6 U .S . 7 1 7 , 7 2 8 (1 9 6 1 ); s e eals o Ch e s s m an v. T ee ts , 35 4 U
. S

. 15 6 , 1 6 6 (19 5 7 ) (“W e . . . rem a n d th e case to the D i stri ct C ou rt,
w ith in s tr u c tio n s to e n te rs u c h o r d e r s a s m a yb e a p p r o p r ia te to a llo w C a lifo r n ia
are a s o n a b le tim e w ith in w h ic h to ta k e fu r th e rp r o c e e d in g s n o t in c o n s is ten t w ith th is o p in ion , fa il in gw h ich th e p e tition e r s h a llb e d isch a rg e d .”)

. A n order c on di t i on al l y di sm i ssi n g t h e un derl yi n g i n di ct m en ti s w arran t ed
o nl y i n na r r o w c i rc um s t anc e s . Bec aus e t he ha be as c o ur tc an ac ts o l e l y o n t he body of t he pr i so ner , i tor di nari l y l ac ks t he p ow ert o o r dert he di sm i ss alof an i n di ct m en t
. E ven w h en the stat e fai l s t o ret ry a defen da n tw i t h i n t h e t i m e set b y a h a b e a s cou rt so t h a t th e w ri t i ssu es, freeing th e defen d a n t, th e st a te is ge n era l l y free to re -arres t an d retry th e d efen d a n t o n t h e origin a li n d i ctm en t. Se e Mo o r e v . Zant , 9 7 2 F
. 2 d 31 8 , 32 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 9 2 ) (“ [I ]f the state fail s to
corr ectt h e d e fect w i t h i n t h e given t i m e an d the pri soner i s r el eased f rom cu sto d y , th e sta te m a yor d in a rilystillre a rr e st a n dre p ro se cu te th a t p e rs o n .”)

. I n r ar e c i r c um s t anc e s , a ha be as c o ur t c an e nd a s t at e c r i m i nalpr o c e e di ng as pa r to f

t he ha be as r e m e dy
. I f t he c o ns t i t ut i o nal pr o bl e m t hat l e d t o t he g r ant
o f t he w r i tc anno tb e c ur e d b y a n ew tri al

— f o re xa m pl e , i f

a do ubl e j e o pa r dy Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 22 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30174

23 vi o l at i o n m e r i t s ha be as r e l i e f

— t he n t he ha be as c o ur t c an pe r m ane nt l y e nd t he
s t at e c r i m i nalpr o c e e di ng. “ Fora fe de r alc o ur tt o e xe r c i s e i t s ha be as c o r pus p o w e rto s to p a s ta te cr im in a l p r o c e e d in g‘s p e c ia l c ir c u m s ta n c e s ’m u s t e x is t.
. . . [ T] he con s t i t ut i o na lv i o l a t i o n m us tb e s uc h t ha ti tc a nn o tb e r e m e d i e dby
ano t he rt r i al , o ro t he re xc e pt i on alc i r c um s t anc e s [ m us t ] e xi s ts uc h t hatt he h oldin g o f a n ew trial w ou l d b e u nj u st. ” Capps , 1 3 F .3 da t 3 5 2 -5 3 ; seealso Fost er v. L ockh art , 9 F. 3d 722, 727 ( 8t h C i r. 1993) ( “ [ B anni ng a r et r i al] i s an extr aordi n ary rem edyt h at i s su i t able on l y i n cert ai n si t u ati on s, su ch as w h ere a re tria l i tse lf w o u ldv iola te th e p e tition e r’s co n stitu tion a l righ ts.”). H ere, a ret ri alw ou l d n otvi ol ate Jones’ s c on st i t u t i on alri gh t s. A dd i t i on al l y, t h ere are n o ot h er “ speci alc ircu m st an ces” t h at j u st i f y an order
en d i n g a l lstate m u rd er p roce ed i n gs ag a i n st Jo n e s in t h e ev en t t h a t t h e S tate
ca n n ot be gin a re tri a lw i th i n 12 0 da ys . T h u s, th e d i stri ct co u rt lack ed au th ority to d o a n y th in ge x c e p t o r d e rJ o n e s ’ s re l e a s e , w h ic h th e co u r t m a yp r o p e r ly cond i t i on by gi vi n g t h e State a cert ai n am ou n tof t i m e t o retry h i m . I t s or der cond i t i on al l y di sm i ssi n g th e i n di ct m en tagainstJon es w as an abu se of d is c r e tio n . CO NC L US I ON The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s g r anto f ha be as c o r pus r e l i e f i s AFF IR M E D
. The po r t i o n of

i t s or de rco ndi t i o nal l y r e qui r i ng t he St at e t o di s m i s s t he i ndi c t m e nt agai nstJo nes i s VA C A TE D and the c as e i s R E M A N D E D f orf urt herpr oc ee di ngs c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . Case: 09-30174 Document: 00511051740 Page: 23 Date Filed: 03/15/2010