Document: Cite as: 566 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BRIAN COLEMAN, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE COR- RECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT FAYETTE, ET AL. v. LORENZO JOHNSON ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS THIRD CIRCUIT No. 11–1053. Decided May 29, 2012 PER CURIAM. Respondent Lorenzo Johnson was convicted as an ac- complice and co-conspirator in the murder of Taraja Wil- liams, who killed by a shotgun blast to chest early morning hours December 15, 1995, Har- risburg, Pennsylvania. After his conviction affirmed state court, exhausted remedies sought writ habeas corpus Federal District Court pursuant Antiterrorism Effective Death Penal- ty Act 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S. C. §2254. The denied relief but Appeals for Third Circuit reversed, holding that evidence at trial insufficient support Johnson’s under standard set forth Jackson Virginia, 443 307 (1979). We have made clear claims face high bar federal proceedings because they are subject two layers judicial deference. First, on direct appeal, “it is responsibility jury—not court—to decide what conclusions should be drawn from admitted trial. A reviewing court may aside jury’s verdict ground only if no rational trier fact could agreed with jury.” Cavazos Smith, 565 1, ___ (2011) (per curiam) (slip op., 1). And second, review, “a not overturn decision rejecting sufficiency challenge simply 2 COLEMAN disagrees court. instead do so ‘objectively unreasonable.’ ” Ibid. (quoting Renico Lett, 559 ___, (2010) 5)). Because failed afford due respect role jury courts Pennsylvania, we now grant certiorari reverse judgment below. * parties agree Williams shot Corey Walker, subsequently first- degree murder. Walker night crime, were tried jointly. charged accomplice co-conspirator. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §2502 (2008) (defining first-degree “willful, deliberate premeditated” killing); §306(c) (imposing liability anyone who, “with intent promoting or facilitating commission offense . aids agrees attempts aid such other person planning committing it”); Commonwealth Montalvo, 598 263, 274, 956 A.2d 926, 932 (criminal conspiracy takes overt act furtherance crime he has abet commit). At trial, called Victoria Doubs, testified she, Johnson, “close friends” “ran streets together.” Tr. 213. On 14, three them awoke same residence, bought marijuana, then went Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, where encoun- tered Williams. announced going “holler at” about debt owed. Id., 217. According “were talking money [Williams] had owed us,” “asking [Williams], confronting him, what’s up why it 3 taking you long give us money.” 217–218. “cussing [Walker] out, telling him he’d when felt like ain’t scared [Walker].” 218. fight ensued, which ended beat broomstick front crowd people gathered. fight, Doubs testified, “was mad, be- cause got crackhead. He saying, yo, crackhead me. I’m kill kid. hot. heated.” 220–221. present these statements. Later afternoon, recounted beating others, laughed Walker. “repeated while That kid must think some type joke. Who is[?]” 222. Once again, Another witness Carla Brown, friend victim, she Midnight Special Bar 14–15, saw engaged heated argument. Although hear tell arguing making lot arm movements.” 104. bouncer soon told leave, Brown followed into street “wanted know on.” observed men walking single-file line, front, middle, back. wearing leather coat, something concealed under- neath it. alleyway, point recognized her “go ahead” pass. 107. entered Williams, remained standing entrance. As walked past alley, heard loud “boom,” causing run away. 4 143. cross-examination, stated: “They alley. stood inside I boom.” also Aaron Dews, testi- fied building bordering alleyway 12:45 a.m. 15. boom caused look out alley second-story window, silhouettes fleeing. Dews Brian Ramsey, been selling cocaine nearby corner time toward males female, shortly after When pressed “I would say forced alley.” 189. testimony police searched found barrel missing. medical examiner exam- ined Williams’ body death wound chest. filed post-trial motion sup- port conviction. motion, Pennsylvania Superior appeal. 726 1079 (1998). Supreme petition unsuccessfully postconviction relief. Court, claims. Mechling, 541 F. Supp. 2d 651 (MD 2008). Finally, appealed Circuit, reversed ordered overturned. Under Jackson, sufficient con- 5 viction if, “after viewing light most favorable prosecution, any essential elements yond reasonable doubt.” S., 319. In acknowledged “[a] reason- ably infer shared common confront, threaten harass Williams.” 446 Fed. Appx. 531, 540 (CA3 2011). notion “Johnson Walker’s Williams,” however, concluded “mere speculation” factfinder accept true. stated inference one inferred ‘more likely than flow proved depend.’ 539–540 McFarland, 452 435, 439, 308 592, 594 (1973)). order inferences permissible, reasoned, “ ‘flow facts circumstances proven record’ ‘of volume quality overcome presumption innocence.’ Appx., 539 Bostick, 958 543, 560 (Pa. Super. 2008)). outset, note error law determining distinguishes reasoned specula- tion.” “the substantive criminal offense,” 324, n. 16, minimum amount evi- dence Due Process Clause requires prove purely matter law. deferential standard, approach taken flawed un- duly impinged factfinder. leaves juries broad discretion deciding draw presented requiring 6 jurors “draw basic ultimate facts.” This does permit fine-grained factual parsing engaged. For ex- ample, addressing Ramsey’s “walked” “forced” objected witnesses did describe “physical action” supporting conclusion force used. 541. Absent specific mony actively pushed, shoved, otherwise victim prevented leaving it,” ibid., see able basis help analysis reasons. coer- cive nature behavior involving use force: noticeably concealing weapon, heatedly threatening violent confrontation earlier day. kept between line way entrance entered, suggesting prepared prevent even co- erced still helped lead lure there facilitate Taken revealed together,” attempted collect day resisted collection, managing humiliate process giving public thrashing broomstick. enraged repeatedly declared over course 7 presence intended Then, bulky object trenchcoat, escort entryway pulled facts, knew armed shot- gun; Williams; usher meet fate. this case convinced, question whether finding insupporta- ble fall below threshold bare rationality. last review so, deter- mination turn entitled considerable deference AEDPA, §2254(d). Affording courts, conclude nearly sparse enough sustain pro- cess Jackson. convict Commonwealth’s proceed forma pauperis granted, Ap- peals remanded further consistent opinion. It ordered.

Category: 0