Document: 127 S. Ct. 649 (2006) 549 U.S. 70 Thomas L. CAREY, Warden, Petitioner, v. Mathew MUSLADIN. No. 05-785. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 11, 2006. Decided December *651 Gregory A. Ott, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner. David W. Fermino, appointed by this Court, respondent. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General California, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant General, Gerald Engler, Senior Donald E. De Nicola, Deputy Solicitor Peggy Ruffra, Supervising Counsel Record, Petitioner. at Law, Respondent. Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion Court. This has recognized that certain courtroom practices are so inherently prejudicial they deprive defendant a fair trial. Estelle Williams, 425 501, 503-506, 96 1691, 48 Ed. 2d 126 (1976); Holbrook Flynn, 475 560, 568, 106 1340, 89 525 (1986). In case, state court held buttons displaying victim's image worn family during respondent's trial did not deny respondent his right to We must decide whether holding was contrary or an unreasonable application clearly established federal law, as determined 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). hold it not. I On May 13, 1994, Musladin shot and killed Tom Studer outside home Musladin's estranged wife, Pamela. At trial, admitted he but argued in self-defense. A California jury rejected self-defense argument convicted him first-degree murder three related offenses. During several members Studer's sat front row spectators' gallery. least some trial's 14 days, wore with photo on them.[1] Prior opening *652 statements, counsel moved order wear The denied motion, stating saw "no possible prejudice defendant." App. Pet. Cert. 74a. appealed conviction Appeal 1997. He deprived Fourteenth Amendment Sixth rights. outset its analysis, stated had show actual inherent succeed claim cited supra, 570, providing test prejudice. Appeal, quoting part Flynn's test, made clear "consider[ed] wearing photographs victims be `impermissible factor coming into play,' practice which should discouraged." 75a (quoting 1340). Nevertheless, concluded, again 571, "branded `with unmistakable mark guilt' eyes jurors" because "[t]he simple photograph unlikely have been taken sign anything other than normal grief occasioned loss [a] member." 75a. conclusion appellate process, filed writ habeas corpus Federal District pursuant 2254. application, were erred Studers' relief granted certificate appealability issue. Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed remanded issuance writ, finding under 2254 court's decision "was to, involved of, States." According Appeals, Court's decisions Williams Flynn rule law applicable case. Lamarque, 427 F.3d 653, 656-658 (2005). Specifically, own precedent support conduct. F.3d, 657-658 (citing Norris Risley, 918 F.2d 828 (C.A.9 1990)). differed from one constituted law." 659-660. rehearing en banc. 647 certiorari, 547 1069, 1769, 164 515 (2006), now vacate. II Under Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996, 110 Stat. 1219: "(d) An behalf person custody judgment State *653 shall respect any adjudicated merits proceedings unless adjudication claim "(1) resulted Taylor, 529 362, 120 1495, 146 389 (2000), we explained "clearly law" 2254(d)(1) "refers holdings, opposed dicta, time relevant state-court decision." Id., 412, 1495. Therefore, may here if Appeal's holdings. addressed effect defendants' fair-trial considered "whether accused who is compelled identifiable prison clothing due process equal protection laws." U.S., 502, 1691. "the cannot, consistently Amendment, compel stand before while dressed clothes," id., 512, case waived objection being tried clothes failing object 512-513, seating "four uniformed troopers" seats immediately behind 562, 1340. presence troopers reaching holding, question be... `an unacceptable risk presented impermissible factors play.'" 1340 505, 1691). Both dealt government-sponsored practices: clothes, seated defendant. Moreover, both cases, noted justified "essential state" policy interest. 1691 (concluding "further[ed] no essential policy"); 568-569, (holding sort interest"). B contrast state-sponsored practices, defendant's rights spectator conduct objects open our jurisprudence. never such private-actor trial.[2] And although *654 articulated applies applied Indeed, legal Flynnasking furthered interestsuggests those cases apply only practices. Reflecting lack guidance lower courts diverged widely their treatment spectator-conduct claims. Some F.2d, 830-831 (applying trial); re Woods, 154 Wash.2d 400, 416-418, 114 P.3d 607, 616-617 (2005) concluding ribbons spectators defendant). Other declined extend Billings Polk, 441 238, 246-247 (C.A.4 2006) ("These precedents do establish violated whenever article arguably conveys message about matter jury"); Davis State, 223 S.W.3d 466, 474-475, 2006 WL 1211091, *6-*7 (Tex.App.2006) ("Appellant does cite authority display type item creates prejudice"). distinguished facts. Pachl Zenon, 145 Or.App. 350, 360, n. 1, 929 P.2d 1088, 1093-1094, 1 (1996) (in banc). still ruled claims without relying on, discussing, distinguishing Flynn. Buckner 714 So. 384, 388-389 (Fla.1998) (per curiam); Speed, 265 Kan. 26, 47-48, 961 29-30 (1998); Nguyen 977 S.W.2d 450, 457 (Tex.App.1998); Kenyon 58 Ark.App. 24, 33-35, 946 705, 710-711 (1997); Nelson, 96-0883, pp. 9-10 (La.App. 12/17/97), 705 758, 763. Given holdings regarding potentially kind here, cannot said "unreasonably] applied] No required here. law. III improperly concluded For these reasons, vacated, further consistent opinion. It ordered. STEVENS, concurring judgment. *655 issued two opinions announcing separate Part II-B O'Connor's opinion, incorrect necessarily "`unreasonable ... law'" within meaning 409-413, Parts IV my O'Connor joined, Virginia rejection petitioner's received ineffective assistance earlier Strickland Washington, 466 668, 104 2052, 80 674 (1984). 390-398, Strickland, petitioner effective upheld sentence death. 700, 2052. While ultimate ineffective-assistance claim, reasoning (including carefully dicta) set forth standards evaluating accepted over 20 years. See 391, somewhat ironic dictum her statutory phrase States," refers That repeated subsequent bare majority constitutional four us would upheld.[*] Because am persuaded dicta represents interpretation statute's text, repetition today wholly unnecessary, join Virtually every new principle contains explanatory language intended provide lawyers judges future cases. See, e.g., Crawford 541 36, 124 1354, 158 177 (2004); 2052; Miranda Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966); see also Marbury Madison, Cranch 137, 2 60 (1803). quite wrong invite discount importance ground strictly necessary explanation specific Cf. County Allegheny American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 573, 109 3086, 472 (1989) (KENNEDY, J., dissenting part) ("As general rule, stare decisis directs adhere prior explications governing rules law"); Sheet Metal Workers EEOC, 478 421, 490, 3019, 92 344 (1986) (O'Connor, ("Although technically important rationale result reache[s] entitled greater weight ..."). text 1996 itself provides sufficient obstacles obtaining placing *656 judicial thumb warden's side scales. Ultimately, however, reasons joining essentially same expressed SOUTER, caveat. there merit whatsoever suggestion First measure engage symbolic speech express point view ongoing proceeding. KENNEDY, Trials free coercive intimidating atmosphere. fundamental well established. Frank Mangum, 237 309, 35 582, 59 969 (1915), though credited determination relief; square Moore Dempsey, 261 86, 43 265, 67 543 (1923), factfinding rather disruptive press reversal Sheppard Maxwell, 333, 355, 1507, 600 (1966), where "newsmen took practically entire courtroom, hounding most participants trial," Estes Texas, 381 532, 550, 85 1628, (1965), cameras distracted jurors throughout proceedings. against atmosphere exists "we committed government laws men," "of utmost administration justice absolutely orderly," safeguards relating integrity criminal attend stage proceeding... culminating `in court-room presided judge.'" Cox Louisiana, 379 559, 476, 13 487 (1965) Rideau 373 723, 727, 83 1417, 10 663 (1963)); (finding statute face violate prohibited picketing courthouses). Wood Georgia, 370 375, 82 1364, 8 569 (1962); Turner 546, 424 (1965). settled requires court, either direct collateral review, when shows obtained tainted coercion intimidation similar documented foregoing seem true pressures partisans, or, seems Sheppard, persons reacting drama moment created environment raucous calm deliberation judge likely compromised serious way. If, given nature brought buttons, (AEDPA) available even absence addressing buttons. tend accord "more leeway outcomes case-by-case determinations," Yarborough Alvarado, 652, 664, 2140, 938 (2004), AEDPA require wait nearly identical factual pattern applied, cf. Wright West, 505 277, 308-309, 112 2482, 225 *657 (1992) judgment). indication severe extent demonstrated just discussed. instant present issue preventative measure, preserve dignity proclaiming ought course. date. already take careful measures decorum courtrooms, thereby accounting guiding subject. all events, me call perhaps much urgent needs situation. explored system, then can grounds procedural posture concur proceeding, aside sustaining between criteria entailed established" "unreasonable application" murky, makes sense regard standard number dealing threats fairness posed conditions (or originating in) see, (1986); recent ones agree formulation harking back Estes, 542-546, 1628: condition presents "`an play'" jury's consideration intent adopt comprehensive level could clearer. As applicability standard, reaches behavior spectators. focus later appearances jurors' observation. There opinions, reason think now, individual blame objectionable sight; way, affirmative obligation control keep improper influence. 363, 1507. since Williams-Flynn guide judges, laypersons schooling trials, enough tell visitors. Nor reasonable doubt pertinence question; seriously allowing visible raise considerations. *658 evidence going guilt innocence, once appeal sympathy victim (and buttons) response them. part, expected verdict guilty, sympathetic urge assuage rage survivors paradigm consideration. debatable "unacceptable" level. unacceptable, considerations acted unreasonably way reverse conviction. First, influence left convictions standing. Braxton, N.C. 702, 709-710, 477 S.E.2d 172, 176-177 (1996); Lord, 128 Wash. 216, 219-223, 1241, 1243-1245 (2005); (Tex.App.1998). wary assuming reviewing mistaken embrace no-risk find hard say detail buttons' display. Second, interest protected expression mourners' raised, attention come notice. Although intuitively strong developed preferable acceptance raised shown judge's unreasonable, NOTES [1] record little concrete information apparently inches diameter displayed Studer. how many days [2] sham mob dominated. 91, (1923) (describing allegations whole proceeding [was] maskthat counsel, swept fatal end irresistible wave public passion, Courts failed correct wrong"); 324-325, (1915) ("[T]he disorder up reception amounted domination, presiding succumbed it"). [*] 660-661, Lockyer Andrade, 538 63, 71, 123 1166, 155 144 (2003); Tyler Cain, 533 656, 121 2478, 150 632 (2001).

Category: 0