## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r18,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT D A V I D P. STEV EN S, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. N o. 05- 1250 J O SE PH O R T I Z , D i r ect or , C ol or ado De p a r t me n to f

Co r r e c t i o n s ; RI CK SO A RE S, W a r de n; a nd J O H N SU TH ER S, A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, S ta te o f C o lo ra d o , R espon den t s- A pp el l ees.

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t r i c t of

C ol or ado ( D. C. No . 0 3 - CV- 0 0 5 3 3 - REB- BNB) M adel i ne S. C ohen, A s s i s t antPubl i c D efe nder( R aym ond P. M oor e, Feder al P u b li c D efen d er, w ith h er o n the b ri efs), D en v er, C o lorad o , fo r P eti ti o n erA p p e llan t. L aur i e A . B oor as , Fi r s tA s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al , A ppel l at e D i vi s i on, C r i m i nal Ju stic e S e c tio n (Jo h n W . S u th e rs, A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, w ith h e r o n th e b rie f ), S tate o f C o lo ra d o , D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o , fo r R e s p o n d e n ts -A p p e lle e s . B efor e HENR Y , AN DE RS ON , and M CCO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. HENR Y , C i r cui tJ udge. J ohn Sw i gers t at ed i n pol i ce c us t odyt hathe s hotand ki l l ed D avi d Sei l er- 2-

u n d er the o rde rs of

the P eti ti o n er-A p p ell an t D av id P . S teve n s. A t M r. S teve n s’s sta te tria l, M r. S w ig e r d id n o t tes tify , b u t h is s tate m e n t w a s a d m itt e d in to e v id e n c e o v e r M r. S tev e n s’s o bjec tio n . A ju ryc o n v icte d M r. S tev e n s o f firstd eg ree m u rde r an d o ther c o u n ts. O n d ir ec t app ea l, the C o lorad o S u p rem e C o u rt co n clud ed that the a d m issi o n o f M r. S w iger’s c o n fe ssion d id n o t violate M r. St evens ’ s r i ght s undert he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. T he fe der al di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed M r . St evens ’ s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2254, and he ti m elyap p ea ls. W e m u st de cide h ere if th e C o lorad o tr ial co u rtv iolated M r. St even’ s Si xt h A m endmentr i ght s w hen i tadmi t t ed the cus t odi al confe s s i on of M r . Sw i ger , a non- t es t i fy i ng acc om pl i ce, thatal s o i ncul pat ed M r . St evens i n a m u rd e r- fo r- h ir e . W e conc l ude thatt he r eas oni ng of the C ol or ado Supr eme C our tw as contr aryt o cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw , and the i ntr oduct i on of the ac compl i ce co n fe ssion v iolated M r. S teve n s’s ri g h ts un d er the C o n fro n tat ion C laus e. F u rth er, t he Si xt h A m endmenterr orw as notharm l es s . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S . C . § § 1 2 9 1 an d 2 2 5 3 (a) an d (c), w e re v erse the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f M r. S te v e n s ’s § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n a n d re m a n d to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt fo r e n tr yo f th e w ri t.

I . BA CKGROUND W e b ri e fly su m m a ri z e th e u n d e rl y in g fa c ts a n d e a rl ie r c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s . T h e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt d e sc rib e d th e p e rtin e n t fa c ts in m o re d e tail. See- 3-

S tev e n s v . P e op le , 2 9 P .3 d 3 0 5 , 3 0 8 -1 0 (C o lo . 2 0 0 1 ); i d. a t 3 1 9 -2 2 (B e n d e r, J ., c o n c u rr in g in p a rt a n d d is s e n tin g in p a rt ).

A . M r. S e iler’ s d e a th a n d M r. S w ig e r’s sta tem e n ts O n th e e v e n in g o f

F e b ru a ry2 8 , 1 9 9 3 , D a v id S e iler w a s s h o t an d k ill e d in fr ontof M r . St evens ’ s hous e i n A ur or a, C ol or ado. Pol i ce i ni t i al l yi nves t i gat ed M r. S teve n s an d M r. S w iger a s su sp ec ts i n the d ea th b u t fi led n o ch arg es. M r. Sw i gerhad know n M r . Sei l ert hr ough M r . St evens ’ s drug oper at i ons . Soon aft er t he murde r , M r . Sw i ger , hi s gi r l fr i end ( B onni e C l ont z) , and a y oung w om an w ho w a s w ith M r. S e ile r t h e n ig h t h e w a s s h o t ( T in a P a rk s ) m o v e d to T e n n e s s e e . T w o y ear s l at er , A ur or a det ect i ves l earned thatM r . Sw i gerhad bee n br aggi ng t o fr i ends i n T ennes s ee a boutki l l i ng M r . Sei l er . I n J anuary1995, A ur or a D et ect i ves J oe Petrucel l i and TonyR odr i guez tr avel ed t o a Tennes s ee c o u n ty ja il to s p e a k w ith M r. S w ig e r a b o u t h is in v o lv e m e n t in M r. S e ile r’ s d e a th . T he d et ect i ves i nfo rm ed M r. S w i ger of h i s Mi r anda rig h ts, a n d h e a g re e d to ans w erques t i ons . R ec. doc. 12, ex. A , A pp. I , at2 ( “Sw i gerT r . ”) . T hat in te rr o g a tio n a n d s u b s e q u e n t w ri tte n s ta te m e n t fo rm th e b a s is o f th is a p p e a l. 1. Ini t i aldeni alof i nvolvem ent E a rlyin th e in ter v iew , M r. S w ig e r sa id th a t M r. S tev e n s a sk e d h im to m ur derM r . Sei l ert o pr eventM r . Sei l erfr om t es t i fy i ng agai ns tM r . St evens and t w o as s oci at es i n an upcomi ng t r i al . M r . St evens offe r ed t o pay$5, 000 then and- 4-

$5, 000 aft ert he murde r . W hen M r . Sw i gers ai d he nee ded t i m e t o thi nk aboutt he o ffe r, M r. S te v e n s th re a te n e d to h u rt h is fa m ily a n d k ill h im . D ur i ng t he fi r s tt w o- t hi r ds of the i nt ervi ew , M r . Sw i gerr epea t edl ydeni ed ki l l i ng M r . Sei l eron February28, 1993. M r . Sw i gert ol d the A ur or a det ect i ves he w as a t ho m e tha t eve n ing w ith h is fam il yan d d id n o t go to a p artyat M r. St evens ’ s hous e bec aus e he w as w at chi ng hi s chi l dr en. M r . Sw i gers t at ed he ha d onl yhel ped M r . St evens t o di s pos e of a . 38 r evol verthatm ayhave be en i nvol ved w i t h t he murde r . W hen the det ect i ves as ked w ho s hotM r . Sei l er , M r . Sw i ger re s p o n d e d th a t “ s o m e g u yb yth e n a m e o f M ik e ” h a d c a rr ie d o u t th e m u rd e r. Id. at29. B efor e M r . Sw i gergave mor e det ai l s aboutM i ke, he as ked the det ect i ves foras s ur ance s t heyw oul d pr ot ecthi s fami l y . M r . Sw i gerl at ers t at ed s ever al t i m es t hathe w as afr ai d M r . St evens w oul d ki l l hi s fami l yand hi m i f he s poke out a b o u t M r. S te v e n s ’s m u rd e r p lo t. D es pi t e M r . Sw i ger ’ s deni al of anyi nvol vementi n the murde r , the det ect i ves cont i nued t o as k hi m w hetherexce s s i ve drug and al cohol us e that e v e n in g c o u ld h a v e p re v e n te d h im f ro m re m e m b e ri n g th a t h e h a d s h o t M r. S e ile r. M r . Sw i gerr epea t edl ys ai d he w as drunk the ni ghtof the murde rand fors ever al s ubs equentm ont hs . H e al s o s t at ed thathe had us ed ac i d and coc ai ne on the day b efo re M r. S eil er’s m u rde r. D etec ti v e P etruc ell i ask ed M r. S w iger a b o u t ho w M r. St evens had pr es s ur ed hi m t o carryoutthe murde r , and the det ect i ve enc our aged M r . Sw i gert o expl ai n hi s r ol e t o “getthi s off [ hi s ] ches t . ” Id . at53. M r . Sw i ger- 5-

began t o cryand r es ponded mul t i pl e t i m es that“I ’ m nots ur e. ” Id . T he det ect i ves t ol d M r . Sw i gertheycoul d not“make [hi m ] anydeal s , ” but p ro m is e d to k e e p M s . C lo n tz a n d th e irc h ild re n s a fe . Id . at54. M r . Sw i geras ked tw ice to sp ea k w ith M s. C lon tz, b u t th e d etec ti v es re fu sed h is r eq u est. M r. Sw i geri ns i s t ed thats he had nothi ng t o do w i th the murde rand s oughtas s ur ance f ro m th e d e te c tiv e s th a t s h e w o u ld n o t b e p ro s e c u te d . 2. Lat erconf

es s i on A ft ert he det ect i ves s ai d t heyw oul d notpr os ecut e M s . C l ont z, M r . Sw i ger change d hi s s t or y( atpage 61 of the 73- page i nt ervi ew tr ans cr i pt ) and des cr i bed a di r ectr ol e i n t he murde r . M r . Sw i gers ai d he r ece i ved a c al l on the ni ghtof the m ur dert o dr i ve pr om pt l yt o M r . St evens ’ s hous e, w her e M r . Sei l erw oul d s oon be l eavi ng. M r . Sw i gers t at ed thathe then di r ect ed M s . C l ont z t o go t o the l i quor s to re a n d b u yc ig a re tte s , w ith o u t in fo rm in g h e r o f a n yp la n to s h o o t M r. S e ile r. M r . S w i g e rs a i d h e t h e n d r o v e t o M r . S t e v e n s ’ s h o u s e , p a r k e d i n a n e a rb y a l l e y, and gotoutof hi s car . W hen M r . Sei l erw al ked outof the hous e, he fi r ed tw i ce f ro m a b a c k g a te n e a r th e h o u se , an d th e n “ to o k o ff ru n n in ’ [ a n d ] ju m p e d b a c k in t he M us t ang” t o r etur n t o hi s r es i dence “befor e B onni e [Cl ont z] gotback. ” Id . at 6 3 . M r. S w ig e r s ta te d th a t h e s h o t a t M r. S e ile r b u t d id n o t in te n d to k ill h im . M r. S w iger later resp o n d ed that M r. S teve n s h ad sp ec ifi ca ll yd ir ec ted M r. S w i ger t o sho ot M r. S ei l er. M r. S w i ger al so i nd i cat ed thathe k new he w as a s us pecti n t he C ol or ado murde rw hen the i nt ervi ew began. T he det ect i ves hadR ul e 804( b) pr ovi des t hat‘ [t ] he fol l ow i ng ar e notexcl uded byt he 1 h e a rs a yru le if

th e d e c la ra n t is u n a v a ila b le a s a w itn e s s :” . . . (3 ) A sta tem e n t w h ich w a s a t th e tim e o f its m a k in g so fa r c o n tr a ryto th e d e c lar a n t’s p e c u n iar yo r p ro p rie tar yin ter e st, o r so fa r te n d e d to s ubj ect hi m t o ci vi l or cr i m i nal l i abi l i ty , or t o r ender i nval i d a cl ai m by hi m agai ns t an o ther, t hata r eas onabl e man i n hi s pos i t i on w oul d not have made the s t at ementunl es s he bel i eved i tt o be true. A s t at ement (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 6- ear l i ert ol d M r . Sw i gert hathe w as a s us pectand thattheyhad al r eady i nt ervi ew ed M s . C l ont z. Fi nal l y , w hen as ked i f the det ect i ves had offer ed any pr om i s es ordeal s forhi s s t at ement , M r . Sw i gers ai d, “N o, s i r , j us ’ that. . . i f I t ol d t he trut h, m yfami l y ’ d be pr ot ect ed. ” Id . a t 7 2 . A ft erm or e than tw o hour s of i nt err ogat i on, M r . Sw i gerw r ot e and s i gned a s t at ementt hats um m ar i zed hi s confe s s i on.

B . T r i al and di r ectappea l M r. S teve n s an d M r. S w iger w ere ch arg ed in co n n ec ti o n w ith M r. S eil er’s d ea th an d tr ied s ep ara tel yin C o lorad o co u rt . P ri o r t o M r. S teve n s’s tri al, M r. Sw i geras s ert ed hi s Fi fth A m endmentpr i vi l ege a gai ns ts el f- i ncr i m i nat i on, and the pr os ecut i on offe r ed M r . Sw i ger ’ s r ecor ded and w r i t t en s t at ement s . M r . St evens fi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude the s t at ement s . T he s t at e di s tr i ctcour tfound t he s t at ement s agai ns tM r . Sw i ger ’ s penal i nt er es tand admi t t ed the ac compl i ce co n fe ssion u n d er C o lo. R . E v id. 80 4 (b)(3 ). 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 ten d in g to e x p o se th e d e c lar a n t to c rim in a l li a b ili tya n d o ffe re d to excul pat e the ac cus ed i s notadmi s s i bl e u n les s corr obor at i ng c irc u m sta n c e s c lea rlyin d ica te th e tru stw o rth in e ss o f th e sta tem e n t.

- 7- A tt r i al , t he pr os ecut i on i ntr oduced i nt o evi dence M r . Sw i ger ’ s t aped stat em en t–p lay ed in f u ll to the jury

– an d the s u b seq u en t w ri tt en co n fe ssion . M r. Sw i ger ’ s cus t odi al s t at ementw as the onl ydi r ectevi dence connec t i ng M r . St evens to M r. S e iler’ s d e a th . A f ter th e ju ryd e lib e ra ted fo r a p p ro x im a tely9 0 m in u tes , it as ked t o hearpart s of M r . Sw i ger ’ s r ecor ded s t at ement . Shor t l yaft erhear i ng t he ful l t aped s t at ementagai n, t he j uryr eac hed a ve r di ct . I tconvi ct ed M r . St evens of ( 1) fi r s t - degr ee mur deraft erdel i ber at i on, i n vi ol at i on of C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 3- 1 0 2 ; (2 ) c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it firs t-d e g re e m u rd e r, in v io latio n o f C o lo . R e v . S tat. § 18- 2- 201; and ( 3) s ol i ci t at i on t o comm i tfi r s t - degr ee mur der , i n vi ol at i on of C ol . R ev. St at . § 18- 2- 301. T he di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d M r . St evens t o l i fe i m pr i s onm enton t he fi r s t - degr ee mur dercount , and t o 24 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent eac h on t he cons pi r acyand s ol i ci t at i on count s . T he courtor der ed the thr ee s ent ence s t o run concurr ent l y , butcons ecut i ve t o a l i fe s ent ence thatM r . St evens w a s a lr e a d ys e rv in g o n a n u n re la te d c o n v ic tio n . M r. S t even s appea l ed h i s conv i ct i on t o the C olor ado C ou rtof A pp eal s, argui ng t hat the ad m i ssi on of M r. S w i ger’ s cust od i al st at em ent w i tho ut cr ossexami nat i on vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. T he C ol or ado- 8-

C our tof A ppeal s aff

i r m ed. O n appea l , the C ol or ado Supr eme C ourtgr ant ed c e rt io ra ri a n d a ffir m e d . St eve ns , 2 9 P . 3 d at 30 8 . T h e C o lorad o S u p rem e C o u rt concl uded thatM r . Sw i ger ’ s s t at ementdi d notfal l w i thi n a fi r m l yr oot ed hea r s ay exce pt i on butnonethel es s found the s t at ement“admi s s i bl e bec aus e i tcont ai ned s uffi ci entguar ant ees of trus t w or thi nes s . ” Id . J us t i ce Bender , j oi ned byJ us t i ce M ar t i nez, di s s ent ed fr om t he maj or i ty ’ s concl us i on thatM r . Sw i ger ’ s s t at ement b o re s u ffic ie n t in d ic ia o f re lia b ility. S e e id . a t 3 1 8 -3 3 (B e n d e r, J., co n c u rrin g in p art an d d issen ti n g in p art). T h e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtd en ied c erti o rari on A pr i l 1, 2002.

C . Feder al habea s corpus pr ocee di ngs M r . St evens t i m el yfi l ed a 28 U . S. C . § 2254 habea s corpus pet i t i on, and the fede r al di s t r i ctcour tappoi nt ed couns el forhi m . T he di s tr i ctcour texami ned the fa ctors tha t th e C o lorad o S u p rem e C o u rth ad co n side red to find M r. S w iger’s un t est ed st at em ent r el i able. Itrej ect ed som e of the C olor ado cou rt ’s analy si s, concl udi ng t hatt he s t at e courthad rul ed contr aryt o cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw bycons i der i ng bot h t he vol unt ar i nes s of M r . Sw i ger ’ s s t at ementand evi dence t hatcorr obor at ed the det ai l s of hi s confe s s i on. B as ed on thi s rul i ng, the di s tr i ct cour tr evi ew ed the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e i s s ue de novo, no l ongerappl y i ng d e fe re n c e u n d e r t h e A n tite rr o ri s m a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t ( “ A E D P A ” ). S e e B ro w n v . U

p h o ff , 3 8 1 F .3 d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), cer tdeni ed , 54 3 U. S.- 9-

1 0 7 9 (2 0 0 5 ). O n d e n o v o rev iew , the d istri ct co u rth eld th at th e a d m issi o n o f M r. S w iger’s c u stod ial stat em en t w ith o u t cross-e x am ination d id n o t violate M r. S tev e n s’s rig h ts u n d e r th e C o n f ro n tatio n C lau se . A c c o rd in g to th e d istric t co u rt, th e sta tem e n t w a s (1 ) tru lyse lf-in c u lp a to ry , (2 ) d e taile d , (3 ) n o t o ffe re d in excha nge forl eni ency , ( 4) bas ed upon M r . Sw i ger ’ s per s onal know l edge of the e v e n t s , ( 5 ) n o tg i v e n i n r e t a l i a t i o n a g a i n s tM r . S t e v e n s , a n d ( 6 ) g i v e n b y a decl ar antw ho w as m ent al l yand phy s i cal l ys t abl e. T hes e fa ct or s i ndi cat ed that th e s ta te m e n t w a s s u ffic ie n tly re lia b le . M r . St evens t i m el yappea l ed, and the di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed a c er t i fi cat e of ap p ea labili tyo n w h ethe r th e C o lorad o co u rt ’s ad m issi o n o f M r. S w iger’s s ta te m e n t v io la te d M r. S te v e n s ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . I I . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW U nderA E D PA , w e mayonl ygr antM r . St evens habea s r el i ef i f the C ol or ado Supr eme C our t ’ s adj udi cat i on “r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on thatw as [1] contr aryt o, or[2] i nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe d e r a l l a w, a s d e t e r mi n e d b yt h e S u p r e me Co u r to f t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s . ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 4 (d )( 1 ). T h e fir s t g ro u n d fo r r e lie f u n d e r A E D P A , a d e c is io n th a t is “ c o n tr a ry to . . . cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw , ” i d. , is m e t if th e sta te c o u rt (1 ) “ a p p lies a ru le- 10-

t hatcontr adi ct s t he governi ng l aw s etfor th i n [Supr eme C our t ] cas es ” or( 2) “conf r ont s a s etof fa ct s t hatar e mat er i al l yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om a dec i s i on of [the Supr eme] C our tand neve r t hel es s arr i ves as a r es ul tdi ffe r entfr om [the C our t ’ s ] pr ece dent . ” Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or , 5 2 9 U .S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 6 (2 0 0 0 ). A sta te c o u rt’s d e c isio n is n o t co n tra ryto c lea rlye sta b lish e d fe d e ra l law e v e n if a sta te cour thas no aw ar enes s of contr ol l i ng Supr eme C our tpr ece dent , “s o l ong as n e ith e r th e re a so n in g n o r th e re su lt o f th e sta te- c o u rt d e c isio n c o n tra d icts [Supr eme C our t ] pr ece dent . ” E ar l y v. P acke r , 5 3 7 U. S . 3 , 8 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . Wh e n we r evi ew a s um m arydi s pos i t i on bya s t at e court , w e foc us on i t s r es ul tr atherthan a n yre a s o n in g . Sa iz v . O rtiz , 3 9 2 F .3 d 1 1 6 6 , 1 1 7 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), cer tdeni ed , 1 2 5 S . C t. 29 7 6 (2 0 0 5 ); A y c o x v . Ly tle , 1 9 6 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). H o w e v e r, w h e n a p p ly in g A E D P A to f u llyre a so n e d o p in io n s b ysta te co u rt s, this cir cu ith as n o t fo cu sed so lel yo n the re su lt“w h ere the s tat e c o u rt ’s e x p licit r eas oni ng contr avene s Supr eme C our tpr ece dent . ” Br o wn , 381 F. 3d at 1225 ( emphasi s added) . I n Br o wn , w e c o n c lu d e d th a t a s tate c o u rt’s r e a so n in g in a C onfr ont at i on C l aus e cha l l enge w as contr aryt o cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw b ec au se ith ad reli ed o n fa ctors “ inap p rop ri ate fo r de term ining w h ethe r a s t at ementi s t rus t w or t hy . ” Id . W e di d notappl yA E D PA defe r ence and i ns t ead rev iew ed d e n o v o – u n d er the co rrect fa ctors ide n ti fied b yS u p rem e C o u rt p re c e d e n t– w h e th e r a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n o c c u rr e d . Id. ; s ee als o Ful cherv. Mot l ey , 44 4 F . 3d 79 1, 80 5-06 (6t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( revi ew i ng a C on front at i on C l auseI n C r aw f or d v. Was hi ngt on , 5 4 1 U . S . 3 6 , 5 9 (20 0 4 ), the S u p rem e C o u rt 2 h e ld th a t tes tim o n ial h e a rsa ym a yb e a d m itt e d a g a in st a d e fe n d a n t at tria l “o n ly w her e the dec l ar anti s unavai l abl e, and onl yw her e the defendanthas a pr i or oppor tuni t yt o cr os s - exami ne. ” C r aw f or d d o es n o t affec t ou r an aly sis. M r. St evens ’ s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal on A pr i l 1, 2002, w hen the U ni t ed St at es S u p rem e C o u rtd en ied c erti o rari w ith reg ard to the C o lorad o S u p rem e C o u rt ’s d e c is io n o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. C raw f ordw as deci ded on M ar ch 8, 2004, and w e do (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 11- chall eng e de n ov o afterfi rs tho l ding t hat the st at e cou rt ’s m ult i -fact or t est c o n tr a v e n e d S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t b e c a u s e it c o n s id e re d im p ro p e r fa c to rs ). T h e se c o n d g ro u n d fo r re lief u n d e r A E D P A

– a sta te c o u rt’s u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f

c lea rlye sta b lish e d S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t– is m e t if th e sta te c o u rt “ c o rre c tlyid e n tifie s th e g o v e rn in g leg a l ru le b u t ap p lies it u n re a so n a b lyto t he fa ct s of a pa r t i cul arpr i s oner ’ s cas e. ” Id . at 40 7 -08 . “[ A ] fe d era l hab ea s co u rt m aynoti s s ue the w r i ts i m pl ybeca us e thatcour tconcl udes i n i t s i ndepende nt j udgm entt hatt he r el evants t at e- courtdeci s i on appl i ed cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw err oneous l yori ncorr ect l y . R ather , thatappl i cat i on m us tal s o be unr eas onabl e. ” Id. a t 4 1 1 . I I I . AEDPA REVI EW Fi r s t , w e i dent i fycl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw “exi s t i ng att he t i m e the defe ndant ’ s convi ct i on beca m e fi nal . ” Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U. S . a t3 8 1 . S e c o n d , we e x a m in e w h e th e r th e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt ru led c o n tra ryto , o r u n re a so n a b ly appl i ed s uch l aw i n i t s deci s i on. 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 notappl yt he dec i s i on re tr o a c tiv e ly to c a s e s o n c o lla te ra l r e v ie w . Br o wn , 381 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 5 -2 7 .

- 12- A. Cl e a r l ye s t a b l i s h e d fe d e r a l l a w T he Si xt h A m endmentof the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on guar ant ees an i ndi vi dual acc us ed of a cr i m i nal offe ns e the r i ght“t o be conf r ont ed w i th the w i t ne s s e s a ga i ns thi m. ” U . S. C ONST . am e n d . V I. T h is rig h t ap p lies in b o th fe d e ra l a n d s ta te p ro s e c u tio n s . P oi nt erv. Texas , 380 U . S. 400, 406 ( 1965) . “The combi ned effec tof . . . confr ont at i on–phy s i cal pr es ence , oath, cr os s - exami nat i on, and obs ervat i on of demeanorbyt he tr i erof fa ct–s erves t he purpos es of the C o n f ro n tatio n C lau se b ye n su rin g th a t ev id e n c e a d m itt e d a g a in st a n a c c u se d is r el i abl e and s ubj ectt o t he r i gor ous adver s ar i al t es t i ng thati s t he norm of A ngl oA m er i can c r i m i nal pr ocee di ngs . ” Ma ry la n dv . C ra ig , 4 9 7 U .S . 8 3 6 , 8 4 6 (1 9 9 0 ). A ccor di ngl y , an out - of- courts t at ementt hatfal l s w i thi n an exc ept i on t o a hea r s ay ru l e u n d e ra s t a t e ’ s e v i d e n t i a r yru l e s mu s tn o n e th e l e s s b e e x c l u d e d f r o m a defe ndant ’ s t r i al i f i t s admi s s i on w oul d depr i ve hi m of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof confr ont at i on. See D ut t on v. E vans , 4 0 0 U .S . 7 4 , 8 0 -8 2 (1 9 7 0 ). Pr i ort o C raw

f ord , Supr eme C our tpr ece dentaddr es s i ng C onfr ont at i on C l aus e r i ght s hel d t hata t es t i m oni al hear s ays t at ementi s admi s s i bl e onl yi f the decl ar anti s unavai l abl e, and onl yi f the s t at ement( 1) s at i s fi es “a f i r m l yr oot ed” exce pt i on t o t he hea r s ayrul e or( 2) bear s “part i cul ar i zed gua r ant ees of- 13-

t rus t w or t hi nes s . ” O h io v . R o b e rts , 4 4 8 U . S . 5 6 , 6 6 (19 8 0 ). T h is tw o -pa rt fr amew or k w as “unpr edi ct abl e, ” C raw f ord , 541 U . S. at63, i n par tbeca us e the C ou rt“decli ne[d ] t o en do rs e a m echan i cal t est ” for asses si ng trustw orthiness , Idaho v. Wr ight , 497 U . S. 805, 822 ( 1990) . N onethel es s , pr e- C raw f orddeci s i ons i dent i fys ever al fac t or s t hatcour t s s houl d ( and s houl d not ) cons i derw hen det erm i ni ng w hetheran ac compl i ce’ s s t at ementi s s uffi ci ent l yr el i abl e t o be a d m itte d w ith o u t c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . T he m ostrel evan tS up rem e C ou rtdecis i on for ou r r eview i s Li l l y v. Virg in ia , 527 U . S. 116 ( 1999) . I n thatcas e, the pet i t i onerB en Li l l y , hi s br other M ark, and a f

r i end w er e arr es t ed fora tw o- daycr i m e s pr ee dur i ng w hi ch they ki l l ed one vi ct i m . D ur i ng pol i ce que s t i oni ng, M ark admi t t ed t o cert ai n cr i m es but s t at ed thatB en and thei rfr i end had s t ol en the guns and B en had a ctual l ys hotthe v ic tim . Id . a t 1 2 0 -2 1 . A t B e n ’s tria l, M a rk in v o k e d h is F if th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts and di d nott es t i fy , butt he di s t r i ctcourtadmi t t ed M ark’ s s t at ement s that des cr i bed B en as the mast erm i nd and ac tual s hoot er . A j uryl at erconvi ct ed B en of m ur derand othercr i m es . B en appe al ed hi s convi ct i on and ar gued that a d m itt in g th e c o n fe ss io n o f h is b ro th e r, a n o n -te stif y in g a c c o m p lice , v io late d h is C onfr ont at i on C l aus e r i ght s . T he V i r gi ni a Supr eme C our taff i r m ed the s ta te m e n t’ s a d m is s io n . A pl ur al i t yopi ni on byJ us t i ce St evens , j oi ned byJ us t i ces Sout er , G i ns bur g, and B r ey er , concl uded thatt he admi s s i on of M ark’ s cus t odi al s t at ement , unt es t ed- 14-

bycr os s - exami nat i on, vi ol at ed B en’ s r i ght s underthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. T he pl ur al i t yfi r s tdet erm i ned thatt he ac compl i ce’ s s t at ement , s hi ft i ng bl ame t o a c ri m in a l d e fe n d a n t, w a s n o t w ith in a fir m ly ro o te d e x c e p tio n to th e h e a rs a yru le . S e e id . a t 1 3 3 . T he Li l l y pl ur al i t yt hen eva l uat ed w hetherthe s t at ementbor e s uffi ci ent in d icia o f

re liab ili tyto b e a d m itt e d w ith o u t cr o ss -e x a m in a tio n . T h e p lu ra lity not ed that“[i ] ti s hi ghl yunl i kel ythatthe pr es um pt i ve unr el i abi l i tythatatt ache s t o acc om pl i ces ’ confe s s i ons t hats hi ftors pr ead bl ame can be e ffe ct i vel yr ebutt ed w hen . . . t he governm enti s i nvol ved i n the s t at ement s ’ pr oduct i on, and w hen the s t at ement s des cr i be pas tevent s and have notbeen s ubj ect ed t o adver s ar i al t es t i ng. ” Id. at13 7. T hu s, adm i ssi on of an accom pli ce’s con fessi on viol at es a d e fe n d a n t’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts u n les s th e tru th f u ln e ss o f

th e sta tem e n t “is s o cl earfr om t he s ur r oundi ng ci r cumst ance s thatthe t es tforcr os s - exami nat i on w oul d be of mar gi nal ut i l i t y . ” Id . at136 ( quot i ng Wr ight , 4 9 7 U .S . a t 8 2 0 ). T he Li l l y pl ur al i t yi dent i fi ed ce r t ai n fac t or s i m pr oper l ycons i der ed bythe V i r gi ni a Supr eme C our tt hats houl d have ha d l i t t l e, i f any , i nfl uence i n an a n a lysis fo r “ p a rt ic u la ri z e d g u a ra n te e s o f tru s tw o rt h in e s s .” F o r e x a m p le , a declar ant’ s aw areness of hi s Mi r anda r i ght s does not“r enderthe ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng hi s s t at ement s s i gni fi cant l ym or e trus tw or thy . ” L ill y , 527 U . S. at 138. T he Supr eme C our thad ea r l i erconcl uded i n L e e v . Ill in o is , 476 U . S. 530, 544 ( 1986) t hatt he vol unt ar i nes s of an a ccompl i ce’ s confe s s i on “does notbearon- 15-

t he ques t i on of w hethert he confes s i on w as al s o fr ee f r om anydes i r e, m ot i ve, or i mp u l s e [ t h e d e c l a r a n t ] ma yh a v e h a d e i th e rt o mi t i g a t e th e a p p e a r a n c e o f h i s o wn cul pabi l i t ybys pr eadi ng t he bl ame ort o over s t at e [the defendant ’ s ] i nvol vement [i n t he cr i m es ati s s ue] . ” I n L ill y , t he pl ur al i t yal s o des cr i bed how a courtcannotr el yon out s i de e v id e n c e to v a lid a te a d e c lar a n t’s u n c h a llen g e d h e a rsa ysta tem e n t. “[ T h e fa c t] [ t]h a t o th e r e v id e n c e a t trial c o rro b o ra ted p o rtio n s o f [ a d e c lar a n t’s] s tate m e n ts is i r r el evant . ” L ill

y , 5 2 7 U .S . at 1 3 7 ; s ee als o Wr ight , 497 U . S. at822 ( r ej ect i ng t he “cont ent i on t hatevi dence corr obor at i ng the truth of a he ar s ays t at ementm ay pr oper l ys uppor ta fi ndi ng t hatt he s t at ementbear s ‘ part i cul ar i zed gua r ant ees of t rus t w or t hi nes s ’ ”) ( quot i ng R o b e rts , 4 4 8 U .S . a t 6 6 ). T he Li l l y p lu ra litya d d re ss e d se v e ra l o th e r fa c to rs. It n o ted th a t a decl ar ant ’ s s el f- i ncul pat or ys t at ementi s “s us pecti ns ofaras [he] i ncul pat e[s ] ot her per s ons . T hata per s on i s m aki ng a br oadl ys el f- i ncul pat or yconfe s s i on does not m ake mor e cr edi bl e the confes s i on’ s non- s el f- i ncul pat orypart s . ” L ill y , 52 7 U. S. at139 ( quot i ng Wi l l i am s on v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 1 2 U . S . 5 9 4 , 5 9 9 (19 9 4 )). F u rth er, t he pl ur al i t ys t at ed, “the abs ence of an e xpr es s pr om i s e of l eni encyt o [the decl ar ant ] does notenhanc e hi s s t at ement s ’ r el i abi l i tyt o the l evel nece s s aryfor t hei runt es t ed admi s s i on. ” Id. Fi nal l y , the pl ur al i tyexpr es s ed conc ern aboutan o ffice r’s u se o f

lea d in g q u e stio n s d u rin g a c u sto d ial c o n fe ss io n ; a d e c lar a n t in t hatpos i t i on has “a na tur al m ot i ve t o at t empt t o excul pat e hi m s el f as m uch as- 16-

pos s i bl e. ” Id . N otabl y , t he co ncu rr i ng op i nions of Just i ces Sca l i a and T ho m as al so concl uded thatt he admi s s i on of the ac compl i ce’ s s t at ementvi ol at ed the C o n f ro n ta tio n C la u s e . B o th J u s tic e s a d o p te d a c a te g o ri c a l a p p ro a c h . S e e id . at 1 4 3 (S c a lia, J., co n c u rrin g in p a rt a n d c o n c u rrin g in th e ju d g m e n t) (re fe rrin g to t he ad m i ssi on of M ark’ s st at em ent as a “paradigm at i c C on front at i on C l ause v io latio n ” ); id . at143- 44 ( T hom as , J . , concurr i ng i n par tand conc ur r i ng i n the ju d g m e n t) . W e r ej ectt he s t at e’ s ar gum entthatthe hol di ngs of the four - J us t i ce L ill y p lu ra litya re n o t cle a rlye sta b lish e d fe d e ra l law . U n d e r § 2 2 5 4 (d )(1 ), th e “ c lea rly es t abl i s hed” phr as e “r efe r s t o t he hol di ngs , as oppos ed t o the di ct a of [ the Supr eme] C our t ’ s deci s i ons as of the t i m e of the r el evants t at e- courtdeci s i on. ” Wi l l i a ms , 529 U . S. at412. I n L ill y , the ca t egor i cal rul e out l i ned byJ us t i ces S ca li a a n d T h o m as re ad s the req u ir em en ts of the C o n fro n tat ion C laus e m o re br oadl yt han the pl ur al i t y . W e t ake i nt o acc ountthes e conc urr ence s and char act er i ze the narr ow ers t andar ds s etfor th i n J us t i ce St evens ’ s pl ur al i tyopi ni on a s th e “ h o ld in g ”

– a n d th e re fo re c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d fe d e ra l la w . See Marks v. Uni t ed Stat es , 430 U . S. 188, 193 ( 1977) . T hi s tr eatm enti s cons i s t entw i th other ci r cui t s t hathave a ppl i ed L i l l y’s p lu ra lity o p in io n u n d e r A E D P A . See Ful cherv. Mot l ey , 4 4 4 F .3 d 7 9 1 , 8 0 0 n .4 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Mur i l l o v. Fr ank , 402 F. 3d 786, 7 9 1 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); For n v. Hor nung , 343 F. 3d 990, 995 n. 4 ( 9th C i r . 2003)- 17-

(c itatio n o m itt e d ) (h o ld in g th a t “ Li l l y i s ‘ cl ear l yes t abl i s hed fe der al l aw ’ for p u rpo ses o f A E D P A ”).

B . A E D PA r evi ew of the C ol or ado court ’ s deci s i on B ase d o n sev era l fac tors, the C o lorad o S u p rem e C o u rtco n clud ed that M r. Sw i ger ’ s s t at ementt o det ect i ves i n T ennes s ee ha d s uffi ci entguar ant ees of tru s tw o rt h in e s s to b e a d m is s ib le w ith o u t c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . St eve ns , 29 P. 3d at 3 1 4 -18 . M r. S teve n s ch all en g es th e state c o u rt ’s reli an ce o n fo u r of thes e fac tors a s s u p p o rtin g re liab ili ty : th a t (1 ) th e sta tem e n t w a s g e n u in e lyse lf-in c u lp a to ry ; ( 2) i ndepende ntevi dence corr obor at ed i t , ( 3) the s t at ementw as vol unt ary ; and ( 4) th e d e te c tiv e s d id n o t p ro m is e le n ie n c yto M r. S w ig e r. 1. Sel

f - i ncul pat or y natur e of

Mr . Sw iger ’s s tat em ent M r. S tev e n s first a rg u e s th a t th e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt ru led c o n tra ryto Supr eme C our tpr ece dentw hen i ts t at ed that“the mosti m por t antdet erm i nat i on as t o i t s t rus t w or t hi nes s i s w hetherthe s t at ementati s s ue i s genui nel ys el fi ncul pat or yorw hetheri ts hi ft s t he bl ame fr om the confes s ort o the defendant . ” St eve ns , 29 P. 3d at314. T he s t at e courtfound M r . Sw i ger ’ s s t at ementw as “genui nel ys el f- i ncul pat or y ” bec aus e he “ di d notm i ni m i ze hi s i nvol vementi n t he m ur dernordi d he s hi ftt he r es pons i bi l i tyforcomm i t t i ng the murde rt o the defe ndant . ” Id . a t 3 1 5 . I n L ill y , o n lythree Ju sti ce s b eli ev ed “a g en u inelyself-inc u lpato ry- 18-

sta tem e n t [ in c u sto d y ] th a t als o in c u lp a tes a c o d e fe n d a n t” m ig h t sa tisf ya firm ly r oot ed hea r s ayexce pt i on. 527 U . S. at146 ( R ehnqui s t , C . J . , concurr i ng i n the j udgm ent ) . I ns t ead, t he L ill y plur al i ty(al on g w i th Just i ces Sca l i a and T ho m as) expr es s l yr ej ect ed C hi ef J us t i ce Rehnqui s t ’ s concurr ence . A m aj or i tyof the C our tt hus hel d t hatan ac compl i ce’ s cus t odi al confe s s i on i ncul pat i ng a defe ndant–no m at t erhow m uch the s t at ementi ncr i m i nat es the dec l ar ant–does not fa ll w ith in a fir m ly ro o te d e x c e p tio n to th e h e a rs a yru le . Id . a t 1 3 4 a n d n .5 . Im p o rt a n tly, Li l l

y al s o concl uded thatpor t i ons of a s t at ementexpos i ng a dec l ar ant t o cr i m i nal l i abi l i t yadded no r el i abi l i tyt o the non- s el f- i ncul pat orypart s of the s ta te m e n t th a t in c u lp a te a c o -d e fe n d a n t. Id . at138- 39 ( “[A ] s w e have expl ai ned, s uch s t at ement s [aga i ns tpenal i nt er es t ] ar e s us pecti ns ofaras theyi ncul pat e other p e rso n s.” ); accord Wi l l i am s on , 5 1 2 U .S . at 5 9 9 -6 0 0 ; Lee , 4 7 6 U .S . a t 5 4 5 . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe C ol or ado courterr ed notonl yby assi gn i ng rel evan ce t o w hethera st at em ent i s genu i nelysel f-i ncu l patory , bu tal so b ye le v a tin g th a t ir re le v a n t fa c to r t o th e fo re f ro n t in its re lia b ility d e te rm in a tio n . T h e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt’s r e a so n in g w a s th e re fo re c o n tra ryto c lea rly e s ta b lis h e d fe d e ra l la w . 2. C or r obor at i ng evi dence M r. S teve n s n ex t m aintains that the C o lorad o S u p rem e C o u rtruled co n tr ary t o Li l l y and Wrig h t b yrely ing o n the e x ist en ce o f e v iden ce co rrob o rati n g M r. Sw i ger ’ s s t at ementt o s uppor ti t s r el i abi l i ty . I n Wr ight , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld- 19-

th a t h e a rsa ye v id e n c e a d m itt e d a g a in st a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t “m u st p o ss e ss in d icia of r el i abi l i t ybyvi r tue of i t s i nher enttrus tw or thi nes s , notbyr efe r ence t o other evi dence att r i al . ” 497 U . S. at822. I n L ill y , the C our tr ei t er at ed the pr i nci pl e:

“ [ t]h a t o th e r e v id e n c e a t trial c o rro b o ra ted p o rtio n s o f M a rk ’s s tate m e n t is irrelev an t. ” 5 2 7 U . S . at 13 7 . C o rrob o rati o n o f p o rt ion s o f a n ac co m p li ce ’s c o n fe ss io n b yo th e r tria l ev id e n c e c re a tes “ a v e ryre a l d a n g e r th a t a ju ryw ill re ly on par t i al corr obor at i on t o i nferthe trus tw or thi nes s of the ent i r e s t at ement . ” Wr ight , 4 9 7 U .S . a t 8 2 4 . H er e, t he C ol or ado court“[e ] xami n[ed] the r ecor d” and “ [found] that S w iger p rov ided m an yd etail s co n ce rnin g the m u rde r an d the d efen d an t’ s par t i ci pat i on t hatcoul d be i ndepende nt l yconfi r m ed. ” St eve ns , 2 9 P .3 d a t 3 1 7 . “Sw i gerdi s pl ay ed a de pt h of know l edge a boutthe r el at i ons hi p betw een the defe ndantand the vi ct i m t hatgi ves cr edi bi l i tyt o hi s cl ai m thatthe defendant pl anned the cr i m e. ” Id . T he s t at e courtcons i der ed how M r . Sw i ger ’ s i nt ervi ew d etail ed the s h o o ti n g at M r. S teve n s’s h o u se, th e d ispo sal o f th e g u n w ith M r. S teve n s’s assistanc e, M r. S teve n s’s m o ti v e fo r kil li n g M r. S eil er, an d M r. S te v e n s ’s ra tio n a le fo r b e lie v in g th a t M r. S w ig e r w o u ld c a rr yo u t th e m u rd e r. Id . T h e fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th e sta te c o u rt h a d ru led c o n tra ryto Wrig h t byr el y i ng on det ai l s i n M r . Sw i ger ’ s s t at ementthatothertr i al evi dence c o u ld c o rro b o ra te: S w iger’s statem en ts co n ce rnin g S teve n [s’s] m o ti v e fo r kil li n g S eil er,- 20-

how Sei l erhad bee n ki dnaped a nd beat en bySt evens , how St evens had hel ped t o di s pos e of the murde rw eapo n , and Sw i ger ’ s pos i t i on and act i ons att he t i m e of the s hoot i ng al l m ayhave be en s uppor t ed by corr obor at i ve evi dence . I n thi s cont ext , t he fa ctt hatSw iger provi ded thes e d etail s sh o u ld n o t be c o n side red as in d icati n g that S w iger’s s t at ementw as r el i abl e. R ec. vol . I , doc. 31, at22. W e agr ee thatthe C ol or ado court ’ s r eas oni ng w as contr aryt o fede r al l aw beca us e i t“boot s tr ap[pe d] on the trus tw or thi nes s of other evi dence att r i al , ” Wr ight , 497 U . S. at823, w hen i tcons i der ed i ndepende nt e v id e n c e to c o rr o b o ra te d e ta ils o f M r. S w ig e r’ s s ta te m e n ts . See Ful cher , 444 F. 3d at805 ( concl udi ng t hata s t at e courtcontr avene d fede r al l aw w hen i tr el i ed on addi t i onal t es t i m onyand evi dence fr om the cr i m e s cene t o corr obor at e the a c c o m p lic e ’s s ta te m e n t) . 3. Volunt ari ness M r. S tev e n s a lso m a in tain s th a t th e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt e rre d in its tru stw o rth ines s ev alua ti o n b yco n side ri n g the v o lun tari n ess o f M r. S w iger’s st at em ents . T he st at e cou rtheld that “[a] l tho ug h p oli ce i nv est i gator s di d u se s om e l eadi ng ques t i ons i n t he i nt ervi ew , Sw i gerw as notcoer ced a nd no i m pr oper tacti cs w ere u sed . F rom the re co rd th ere is no rea so n to b eli ev e tha t Sw iger’s s t at ementw as anyt hi ng butvol unt ary . ” St eve ns , 2 9 P .3 d a t 3 1 6 ; s ee i d. ( “ W h a t e v e rc a u s e d S wi g e rt o s t a r tt a l k i n g a b o u tth e mu r d e ri n th e fi r s tp l a c e c a me f ro m w ith in h im s e lf

a n d w a s n o t th e re s u lt o f g o v e rn m e n t a c tio n .” ). T he S up rem e C ou rthas i nst ruct ed co urt s not t o co nsi der the v olunt ari ness of a de cl ar ant ’ s s t at ementw hen as s es s i ng i t s part i cul ar i zed gua r ant ees of- 21-

tru s tw o rt h in e s s . Lee , 476 U . S. at544- 45. N ei therthe appa r entvol unt ar i nes s nor p ri o r Mi r anda w arni ngs have a ny“bea r i ng on the l i kel i hood of truthful nes s of [the dec l ar ant ’ s ] s t at ement s . ” L ill y , 527 U . S. at138. Fur ther , thi s ci r cui thas h eld th at “reli an ce o n [v o lun tari n ess] is i n ap p rop ri ate fo r de term ining w h ethe r a s t at ementi s t rus t w or t hy , ” and w e have concl uded thata s t at e courtdeci s i on r e l y i n g o n t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f a d e c l a r a n t ’ s s t a t e me n twa s c o n tr a ryt o S u p r e me C o u rt p re c e d e n t. Br o wn , 381 F. 3d at1225. B eca us e i tcons i der ed the vol unt ar i nes s of M r . Sw i ger ’ s s t at ementt o s uppor tthe s t at ement ’ s r el i abi l i ty , t he C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt’s r e a so n in g in th is c a se is s im ilarlyc o n tra ryto c lea rly e s ta b lis h e d fe d e ra l la w . 4. A bs ence of

a pr om is e of

l eni ency Fi nal l y , M r . St evens ar gues thatthe s t at e courtrul ed contr aryt o Li l l y w hen it relie d o n th e a b se n c e o f a p ro m ise o f

len ien c yto M r. S w ig e r to su p p o rt its fin d ing that the s tat em en t w as su ffici en tl yreli ab le. T h e C o lorad o S u p rem e C o u rt ap p ea red to co n side r th e a b sen ce o f a n yex p ress p rom ise o f len ienc yto M r. Sw i ger : “The pol i ce offi cer s i nt ervi ew i ng Sw i gerexpr es s l yi nform ed hi m on se v e ra l o c c a sio n s th a t h e w o u ld n o t re c e iv e a n yd e a ls in e x c h a n g e fo r h is s t at ement . Fur t herm or e, Sw i gerdi d noti nqui r e as t o anypos s i bl e bene fi the w o u ld re c e iv e fo r c o o p e ra tin g w ith th e in v e stig a tin g o ffice rs a n d m a k in g h is confe s s i on. ” St eve ns , 2 9 P .3 d a t 3 1 6 (fo o tn o te a n d in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ). “[T] he abs ence of an e xpr es s pr om i s e of l eni encyt o [a de cl ar ant ] does not- 22-

enhanc e hi s s t at ement s ’ r el i abi l i tyt o the l evel nece s s aryforthei runt es t ed admi s s i on. ” L ill

y , 5 2 7 U .S . at 1 3 9 . “T h e p o lice n e e d n o t tell a p e rso n w h o is in c u sto d yth a t h is s tate m e n ts m a yg a in h im len ien c yin o rd e r fo r th e su sp e c t to s ur m i s e thats peaki ng up, and part i cul ar l ypl aci ng bl ame on hi s cohort s , m ay i nur e t o hi s advant age. ” Id . I n Br o wn , w e i nt erpr et ed Li l l y t o m ean that“the abs ence of an offerof l eni ency ” w as nota “r el evanti ndi ci [um ] of r el i abi l i ty . ” 381 F. 3d at1227 n. 6. I n t he i ns t antcas e, the s t at e courtdi d nottr eatthe abs ence of anyoffe r s of l eni encyas di s pos i t i ve, buti tappar ent l ycons i der ed the fa ct or w hen i tas s es s ed M r . Sw i ger ’ s s t at ementforr el i abi l i ty . B eca us e Li l l y es t abl i s hed t hatt he abs ence of an offerof l eni encydoes notenhanc e the r el i abi l i tyof the d e c lar a n t’s s tate m e n t, he re to o th e sta te c o u rt’s r e a so n in g w a s c o n tra ryto S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. 5. C oncl us i on I n s u m, t h e Co l o r a d o S u p r e me Co u r t ’ s r e a s o n i n g wa s c o n tr a ryt o S u p r e me C our tpr ece dentbeca us e i tcons i der ed the “ge nui nel ys el f- i ncul pat or y ” natur e of M r. S w ig e r’s sta tem e n t as th e m o st im p o rta n t fa c to r in th e re liab ili tya ss e ss m e n t, St eve ns , 29 P. 3d at31, and bec aus e i tal s o cons i der ed othertr i al evi dence , the v o lu n ta ry n a tu re o f

th e s ta te m e n t, a n d th e a b s e n c e o f a p ro m is e o f

le n ie n c y . A ccor di ngl y , t he s t at e court“appl i e[d] a rul e thatcontr adi ct s the governi ng l aw s etfor t h i n [Supr eme C our t ] cas es , ” Wi l l i a ms , 52 9 U. S. a t40 5, a nd A ED PA d e fe re n c e d o e s n o t a p p ly. S e e Br o wn , 3 8 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 5 .- 23- I V. DE NO VO REVI EW H avi ng concl uded thatt he C ol or ado court ’ s cal cul us i m pr oper l yr el i ed on fac t or s condemned bySupr eme C our tpr ece dent , w e mustnow r evi ew de novo the a d m is s io n o f

M r. S w ig e r’ s s ta te m e n ts w ith o u t c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . See Ful cher , 4 4 4 F .3 d a t 8 0 6 ; Br o wn , 3 8 1 F . 3 d at 12 2 5 . W e c o n side r (1) the text o f M r. Sw i ger ’ s t w o- and- a- hal f houri nt ervi ew and ac company i ng w r i t t en confes s i on, and ( 2) t he s et t i ng of the confes s i on— w ho w as pr es ent , w her e and w hen i tw as m a d e , a n d o th e r c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t m a yh a v e a ffe c te d M r. S w ig e r’ s re s p o n s e s . S e e L ill y , 5 2 7 U . S . at 13 9 . “[ W ]e p resu m e the fa ctua l fi n d ing s o f th e state c o u rt and the fe der al di s t r i ctcour tar e corr ectunl es s cl ear l yerr oneous . ” Br o wn , 381 F . 3 d at 12 2 7 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W e a re c o n fid e n t th a t th e c u m u lativ e im p a c t o f se v e ra l fa c to rs r e late d to M r. S w ig e r’ s c u s to d ia l c o n fe s s io n p re c lu d e s a fin d in g o f s u ffic ie n t r e lia b ility. Fi r s t , and perhaps m os ti m por t ant l y , M r . Sw i gerpr ovi ded hi s confe s s i on t o pol i ce det ect i ves dur i ng a cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on. W e r ecogni ze thatM r . Sw i gerw as noti n cus t odyfort he C ol or ado murde r ; he w as i n a Tennes s ee j ai l on an unr el at ed cha r ge. N onethel es s , M r . Sw i gers t i l l had r eas on t o bel i eve he w as b e in g in v e s tig a te d fo r M r. S e ile r’ s d e a th . See, e. g. , Sw i gerT r . at71 ( “I ’ d al r eady g o t w o rd ‘w a yy ’a ll w e re c o m in ’ h e re , th a t y’a ll h a d a ta p e .” ). C our t s have l ong r ecogni zed thatan ac compl i ce’ s confe s s i on i n pol i ce cu stod y“is p resu m p ti v elyu n reli ab le as to th e p assa g es d etail ing the d efen d an t’ s- 24-

conductorcul pabi l i t ybeca us e thos e pas s ages m ayw el l be the pr oductof the codefendant ’ s des i r e t o s hi ftors pr ead bl ame, curryfavor , avenge hi m s el f, or di ver tat t ent i on t o another . ” Lee , 476 U . S. at545. I n L ill y , C hi ef J us t i ce R ehnqui s tnot ed the Supr eme C our t ’ s “unbr oken l i ne of c as es i n w hi ch cus t odi al confe s s i ons l ay i ng bl ame on a codefendanthave be en found t o vi ol at e the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. ” 527 U . S. at147 ( R ehnqui s t , C . J . , concurr i ng i n the ju d g m e n t) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T h is c a s e fits w ith in th a t c a te g o ry. C f. Un itedS ta tes v . Fra n k lin , 415 F. 3d 537, 548 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( aff i r m i ng the d istric t co u rt’s a d m iss io n o f a n a c c o m p lice ’s s e lf-in c u lp a to ryh e a rsa ysta tem e n t, m ade “ nott o i nves t i gat or s butt o hi s cl os e fr i end, ” thatequal l yi ncul pat ed the d e fe n d a n t); United S tates v. Man f re , 368 F. 3d 832, 842 ( 8th C i r . 2004) ( aff i r m i ng th e d istric t co u rt’s a d m iss io n o f a n u n tes ted h e a rsa ysta tem e n t m a d e “ c a su a llyto an int i m at e con fi dan t e i n a set t i ng that does no trai se the sam e con cern as L ill y ” ). S e c o n d , as Ju stic e B e n d e r’s d iss e n t ex p lain e d , M r. S w ig e r c o n sis ten tly des cr i bed M r . St evens as t he pl annerof the murde rw ho al s o gave hi m the murde r w eapon a nd hel ped hi m t o di s pos e of i t . W hi l e M r . Sw i gereventual l yconfe s s ed t o s hoot i ng t he vi ct i m , he s oughtt o m i ni m i ze hi s r ol e i n s ever al w ay s : ( 1) by r epea t edl yt el l i ng det ect i ves t hathe w as drunk on the eve ni ng of the murde rand had t aken drugs t he pr evi ous day ; ( 2) bycl ai m i ng befor e hi s confe s s i on thathe onl yhel ped M r . St evens t o di s pos e of a gun; ( 3) bys t at i ng aft erthe confes s i on th a t h e h a d to c a rryo u t th e m u rd e r b e c a u se M r. S tev e n s w o u ld o th e rw ise k ill h isM r . Sw i ger ’ s effor t s t o s hi ftors pr ead r es pons i bi l i tyfort he murde r 3 appar ent l yw er e effec t i ve t o s om e degr ee. I n hi s s epar at e tr i al , he w as acqui t t ed o f fir s t- d e g re e m u rd e r.

- 25- fami l yand hi m ; and ( 4) bys ay i ng thathe tr i ed t o s hootthe vi ct i m w i thoutki l l i ng h i m. St eve ns , 2 9 P .3 d a t 3 2 8 (B e n d e r, J ., d is s e n tin g ). 3 T h ird , w h ile th e d e tec tiv e s d id n o t ex p re ss lyo ffe r a “ d e a l” o r le n ien c yto M r . Sw i gerforhi s confe s s i on, t he det ect i ves i m pl i ed t o M r . Sw i ger , and he a p p e a re d to b e liev e , tha t h is g irlfr ien d w o u ld n o t b e p ro se c u ted a n d h is fa m ily w oul d be gett i ng pr ot ect i on as a r es ul tof the s t at ement . W hen the det ect i ves a sk e d M r. S w ig e r to c o n firm th a t th e yh a d n o t o ffe re d a n yd e a ls fo r h is s tate m e n t, M r . Sw i gers t at ed “N o, s i r , j us ’ t hat. . . i f I t ol d the truth, m yfami l y ’ d be p ro te c te d .” S w ig e r T r. a t 7 2 . Four t h, M r . Sw i gerexcul pat ed hi m s el f ( and i ncul pat ed M r . St evens and “M i ke”) dur i ng t he fi r s tt w o- t hi r ds of the s t at ement . T hes e port i ons of the s t a t e m e n tw e r e c e r t a i n l yn o td e c l a r a t i o n s a g a i n s tMr . S w i g e r ’ s p e n a l i n t e r e s t . We agr ee w i t h t he s t at e courtt hatt he l evel of det ai l i n M r . Sw i ger ’ s s t at ementm aybe a fa ct ori n s uppor tof r el i abi l i t y , butw e al s o r ecogni ze thats om e of hi s det ai l ed re sp o n se s w e re flatlyfa lse . F o r e x a m p le, M r. S w ig e r c laim e d th a t M s. C lo n tz w entt o a l i quors t or e on the ni ghtof the murde r , buts uch s t or es i n C ol or ado w o u ld h a v e b e e n c lo s e d o n a S u n d a ye v e n in g . See C O LO . S TAT . § 12- 47- 9 0 1 (5 )(b )(II) . B e fo re h is c o n fe ss io n , M r. S w ig e r a lso d e sc rib e d in so m e d e tail- 26-

th a t “ M ik e ” f

ro m O k la h o m a h a d s h o t th e v ic tim . F ifth , d etec ti v es ro u ti n elyask ed lead ing q u esti o n s d u ri n g M r. S w iger’s cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on. A tone poi nts oon befor e the confes s i on, D et ect i ve P etruc ell i ask ed M r. S w iger a 5 0 0 -w o rd “ q u esti o n ” re m ind ing h im h o w (a) a “t ough D r eamer , nott he fa m i l yD r eamer ” mayhave “ come[] outand go[ne ] and c o m m it[e d ] th e m u rd e r,” ( b ) h e n e e d e d to b e h o n e st w ith h is fa m ilya n d h im se lf aboutt he murde rs o t hathe coul d gethel p; and ( c) “[hi s ] pas ti s bi t i n’ [hi m ] r i ght i n t he but t ” bec aus e “pe opl e t el l on peopl e. ” Sw i gerT r . at58- 59. A tthe end of th e “ q u e stio n ,” th e d e tec tiv e sa id th a t M r. S tev e n s a n d h is tw o a ss o c iate s “ sh o u ld notgetaw ayw i t h any of thi s w hattheym ade y ou do. ” Id . at59. “They s h o u ld n ’t ,” M r. S w ig e r r e s p o n d e d . Id. ; s ee Lee , 476 U . S. at544 ( concl udi ng that a s t at ementagai ns tpenal i nt er es tw as unr el i abl e i n par tbeca us e i tw as uns w orn, “gi ven i n r es pons e t o ques t i ons of pol i ce w ho . . . knew w hattheyw er e l ooki ng fo r,” a n d n o t s u bje c te d to c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n ). In su m , w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t th e re liab ili tyo f M r. S w ig e r’s sta tem e n t is so a p p a re n t f

ro m th e re c o rd th a t cr o ss -e x a m in a tio n a t M r. S tev e n s’s trial w o u ld have be en onl yof “mar gi nal ut i l i ty , ” Wr ight , 497 U . S. at820. B oth par t i es agr ee t hatM r . Sw i ger ’ s unt es t ed cus t odi al s t at ementdoes notfal l w i thi n a fi r m l yr oot ed exce pt i on t o t he hea r s ayrul e. W e now hol d thatthe s t at ementdoes notbear par t i cul ar i zed gua r ant ees of trus tw or thi nes s t o r ebutthe pr es um pt i on of unr el i abi l i t y . T her efor e, t he s t at ement ’ s admi s s i on atM r . St evens ’ s tr i al vi ol at edA l t hough w e do notappl yt he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n C raw f ord 4 h e re , s e e Br o wn , 381 F. 3d at1225- 27, w e not e thatt he C our t ’ s r eas oni ng i n that cas e al s o s uppor t s M r . St evens ’ s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e cl ai m . I n part i cul ar , t he C raw f ordC o u rto b serv ed that sev era l l o w er c o u rt s h ad ap p li ed the tw o -pa rt R ob erts t est“t o ad m i tcore t est i m on i al st at em ents t hat the C on front at i on C l ause p la in ly m e a n t to e x c lu d e .” 5 4 1 U .S . a t 6 3 . C r aw f or d i ncl uded the C ol or ado S up rem e C ou rt ’s Stevens opi ni on i n a s eemi ngl ydi s appr ovi ng s tr i ng ci t at i on of cas es t hathad admi t t ed “c us t odi al confe s s i ons i m pl i cat i ng the ac cus ed. ” Id .

- 27- h i s S i x t h Ame n d me n t r i g h t s t o c o n f r o n t th e wi tn e s s e s a g a i n s t h i m. 4

D . R eview for harm l essness M r. S t even s i s not ent i t l ed to hab eas r el i ef un l ess the C on front at i on C l ause err orar i s i ng fr om t he C ol or ado court ’ s admi s s i on of M r . Sw i ger ’ s unt es t ed s t at ement“had a s ubs t ant i al and i nj ur i ous effectori nfl uence i n det erm i ni ng t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct . ” B r echtv. A br aham s on , 507 U . S. 619, 637 ( 1993) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . H ow ever , w e nee d notdet erm i ne w hethert hi s err or “r es ul t ed i n actual pr ej udi ce, ” id . a t6 3 7 , b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e c o n c e d e s t h a t , i f we c o n c lu d e th e re w a s S ix th A m e n d m e n t e rr o r, s u c h e rr o r w o u ld n o t b e h a rm le s s . W e appr eci at e the St at e’ s pr ofes s i onal and r es pons i bl e ac know l edgmentt hatt he ac co m p li ce co n fe ssion p rov ided the o n lyd ir ec t evid en ce o f M r. S teve n s’s in v o lv e m e n t in th e m u rd e r.

V. CO NC L US I ON A ccor di ngl y , w e R E V E R SE t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of M r . St evens ’ s 28- 28-

U . S. C . § 2254 pet i t i on forhabea s r el i ef, and w e R E M A N D t o the di s tr i ctcour tfor e n tr yo f th e w ri t.