NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0253n.06 F iled: May 9, 2008 No. 07-1161 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
GEORG E LUIS DEJESUS , Petitioner-Appellant , v. BLA IN E C . LA F LER , Warden Respondent-

Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

O P I N I O N

BEF ORE: G UY , SU HRHEI NRIC H, a nd C OLE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. R. G UY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. On Dec ember 11, 19 9 7 , a M i ch i gan jury found Petitioner-Appellant Ge org e L uis DeJesus and hi s brother Me lvin DeJ esus guilty of pre meditated murder, felony murder, c riminal sexual conduct in the first deg ree , and thre e counts of posse ssion of a f irea rm duringthe commission of a fe l o n y . The trial c ourt vac ated the f irst-deg ree murder conviction and one felony firea rm conviction, then sentenc ed DeJesus to concurr ent life ter ms for the murder

and cr iminal sex ual conduct convictions and two y ear s eac h on the two fe lony firea rm
c onvic tio ns . On direc t appea l, the Michig an Court of Appe als vac ated De J esus’s cr iminal sex ual conduc t

c onvic tio n a

nd the re late d f

e lony fi re arm c onvic tio n, and

c or re c te d th e jud g me nt t o r e fl e c t on e fi rs tdeg ree murder c onviction suppor ted by two theories and one c ount of felony firea rm. On May

31, 2000, the Michig an Supreme Court denied De J esus’s application for leave to appea l.No. 07-1161

DeJ esus v. Lafler

- 2 - After exhau s t i n g his remainingreme dies in state cour t, on April 26, 2004, DeJesus filed a petit i o n fo r writ of habe as cor pus in the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of Michig an, ra ising va

rious g rounds for r elief. O n Dec ember 20, 200 6 , t h e district cour t issued an order denying the petition. DeJ esus v. Lafler , No. 04-CV-7 1 5 5 3

- D T , 2 0 06 WL3759911 (E.D. Mich. Dec . 20, 2006). A c e rt if ic a te of a pp e a la bil ity wa s g ra nte d o n th e fo llo wi ngfi ve iss ue s: (1 ) whe the r t he state trial court deprive d petitioner of his due proce ss rig hts to a fair tria l by permitting the prosec ution to present a

photogr aph of D eJesus holdi ng two g uns; (2) whether the state trial cour t deprived De Jesu s o f h is d

ue pr oc e ss r ig hts to a

fa ir tr ia l by perm it ti ng the pr os e c uti on to p re se nt gru e so me photogr aphs of the victim; (3) whether the state prosecutor’s repeated m isconduct wa s so eg reg ious that it wholly u n d er m i ned the tria l, rende red the verdic t unreliable, a nd deprive d DeJesus of due proc es s an d an im partial trial by jury as guara nteed by the Fif th and Four

teenth Amendme nts; (4) whether DeJesus was denied his constitutional rig ht to due proc ess when the trial court de nied the motion for direc ted ver dict on the g round that th er e wa s i n sufficie nt evidence to support the convictions; and (5) whether the Michig an state courts denied DeJesus due proce ss by (A) r efusing to provide ava ilable DNA biolog ical samples for independe nt te sting and (B ) in f ailing to c onduct a hea ringwith respec t to a pos t -a p p ea l expert forensic sc ientist’s report disputing the State’s evidenc e on the c ritical ele ment of the murde r cha rg e, af ter re fusing to appoint an expert at trial. Ha vin g ha d th e be ne fi t of or a l ar g ume nt an d af te r ca re fu lly c on sid e ri ng the re c or d o n a pp e a l, the br ie fs of

the pa rt ie s, and the a

pp lic a ble law, we are no t per su a de d th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in denying D eJesus’s petition. S ince the rea soning which supports the denial of the pe tition has beenNo. 07-1161

DeJ esus v. Lafler

- 3 - a ptl y art ic ulate d b y

the dis tr ic t c ourt , th e iss ua nc e of a de ta ile d wr itt e n opin ion by thi s Co ur t w ou ld be unnec essar ily

duplicative and w ould serve no useful purpose . Acc ording ly , the dec ision of the Honora ble Geor g e C. Steeh, district judg e for the Easter n District of Michig an, is affirme d upon the g rounds stated by

that court in its Opinion and Orde r date d Dec ember 20, 2006. In adopting the district court’s opinion below, w e no t e o n e m i n o r ca veat. Prior to the Antit e rr or ism

and Ef fe c tiv e De a th P e na lty

Ac t of 19 96 (“ AE DPA ” ), 28 U. S.C. § 2 25 4, the Sup re me Court articulate d two harmless-e rror standards. O n direc t review , “bef ore a fe dera l constituti onal

err or ca n be held ha

rmless, the cour

t must be able to dec lare a belief that it wa s harmless beyond a

rea sonable doubt.” Cha

pm an v . Ca lif

or nia , 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). On collateral review, a mor e state-f riendly standard pr evaile d : courts should consider a n err or to be ha

rmless unless the er

ror “‘ha d substantial and injurious ef fe ct o r i nfluenc e in deter mining the jury ’s ver dict.’” Brecht v

. Abrahamson , 5 0 7 U. S

. 6 1 9 , 6 3 7 (1 9 9 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Kotteakos v. United States , 328 U.S. 750, 776 (1946))

. As the district court r ecognized, DeJ esus’s g rounds for r elief w ere subject to harmless- err or analy sis. Applying the then-c ontrolling de cision of Eddleman v . McKee , 471 F.3d 576, 585 (6th Cir. 2005), the district cour

t found that “[w]hen a state court has found an err or to be ha rmless, a fe dera l ha be a s c ourt mu st app ly the de fe re nc e du e un de r 2 8 U .S. C. § 22 54 (d ) a nd a sk wh e the r t

he state court’s ha

rmless-er ror de cision was contr ary to, or an unre asona ble application of, Chapman .” DeJ esus , 2006 WL3759911, at *5. Howeve r, while De J esus’s appe al was pe nding, the Supreme Court i n Fry v. P liler , 1 27 S.Ct

. 2321 (2007), una

nimously reje cted this approa ch and spec ified the c urre nt test. The Fry Court he ldNo. 07-1161

DeJ esus v. Lafler

- 4 - that a fe dera l habea s court “must asse ss the prejudicia l impact of constitutional error in a state-c ourt criminal t rial under the ‘subst antial and injurious effe ct’ standa rd set for th in Brecht , whether

or not the state a pp e llate c ourt re c og nize d the e rr or and re vie we d it

fo r h arm le ssn e ss u

nd e r t he ‘h arm le ss beyond a rea sonable doubt’ standard set fo rt h i n Chapman .” Id. at 2328 (c itations omi tted). Acc ording ly , the prope r inquiry at all times is to as k whether the constitutional violation “‘had substantial a

nd injurious e ffe ct or influence in de termining the jury ’s ver dict.’” Brecht , 507 U.S. at 6 2 3 (q u o t i n g Kotteakos , 328 U.S. at 776). Ap p l yi n g Brecht ’s more state -def ere ntial harmless-e rro r standar d, and for the re asons ide nti fi e d b y

the dis tr ic t c ourt , w e c ann ot s ay that DeJ esu s has ra ise d a ny g ro un d e nti tli nghim

to relief . Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM the judg ment rende red by the district court.