Opinion ID: 165009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pre-AEDPA Analysis

Text: 20 We proceed to determine whether the admission of Vena's statements constituted a Confrontation Clause violation under our pre-AEDPA precedent. Under that precedent, we presume the factual findings of the state court and the federal district court are correct unless clearly erroneous. Crespin v. State of New Mexico, 144 F.3d 641, 647 (10th Cir.1998). Our determination concerning the reliability of the statement is a mixed question of law and fact reviewed de novo. Id. 21 In Earnest v. Dorsey, this court confronted a state court decision that relied on corroborating evidence as one factor supporting the reliability of testimonial hearsay. 87 F.3d 1123, 1133 (10th Cir.1996) (applying pre-AEDPA standard). Without reliance on that factor, this court concluded that a co-defendant's hearsay statement was sufficiently reliable to avoid a Confrontation Clause violation under the Roberts test. Id. We reached that conclusion based on the self-inculpatory nature of the statement, the level of detail concerning the crime, and the absence of any offer of leniency to the co-defendant making the statement. Id. at 1133-34. 6 Those same factors are present here. The state court relied on the following particularized guarantees of trustworthiness: Vena's statements were highly incriminating to him and made before his arrest, the colloquies between Vena and the investigating officers reflect the fact that Vena was not offered any leniency in exchange for his statements, 7 and Vena provided a level of detail about the crime and the location of evidence that would be difficult to fabricate. Brown, 953 P.2d at 1179-80. 22 Under the Roberts test, these considerations were relevant when considering whether Vena's statements were merely designed to mislead. In Earnest we recognized that statements with a high level of detail are difficult to render in a fabricated admission. 87 F.3d at 1134. Likewise, we noted that the absence of any offer of leniency undercuts the motive to lie. Id. Moreover, Brown does not challenge any of the facts related to the indicia of reliability. Guided by Earnest, we must conclude that under the applicable law at the time of the Wyoming Supreme Court's decision the admission of Vena's statements was not error. Accordingly, it is not necessary to address whether any error was harmless.