Opinion ID: 149119
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State Waived Its Harmless-Error Argument

Text: Confrontation Clause violations are subject to harmless-error analysis. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 682, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). Here, the district court held that the State waived any harmless error argument by failing to make the argument in its briefing as to the suicide note, even while raising the issue as to the IMs. A different panel of this court has previously raised but declined to resolve the issue of whether this type of omission constitutes waiver. See Calvert v. Wilson, 288 F.3d 823, 832 n. 1 (6th Cir.2002) (declining to rule on petitioner's argument that the State waived the harmless error issue by raising it in a footnote [in the Return of Writ] without discussion or citation to authority because petitioner was entitled to relief whether [the State] waived the harmless error issue or not); id. at 835-36 (Cole, J., concurring) (contending that the State's harmless-error argument, which was not raised at the district court, should not be reviewed because the warden bear[s] the responsibility of ensuring all defenses, including harmless error, are timely raised). Joining other courts that have considered the question, we now hold that a State waives harmless error when it fails to raise the issue in its response to the habeas petition in federal district court. Sanders v. Cotton, 398 F.3d 572, 582 (7th Cir.2005) (holding that by not making it in the district court, the State waived its argument on appeal that any jury-instruction error was harmless); Lam v. Kelchner, 304 F.3d 256, 269-70 (3d Cir.2002) (holding that the Commonwealth's harmless-error argument in a habeas case was never raised before the District Court and was therefore waived, and noting that the Commonwealth admits waiver); Gabow v. Deuth, 302 F.Supp.2d 687, 706-07 (W.D.Ky.2004) (finding harmless error waived when neither the State's answer nor its memorandum asserted the defense); Randy Hertz & James S. Liebman, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 31.2a (5th ed. 2005) (Like other defenses to habeas corpus relief, the `harmless error' obstacle does not arise unless the state asserts it; the state's failure to do so in a timely and unequivocal fashion waives the defense.). We therefore hold that the district court correctly concluded that the State waived any harmless-error argument. Somewhat half-heartedly, the State challenges this finding, noting that the cases relied on by the district court involve express waiver. E.g., Hargrave v. McKee, 248 Fed.Appx. 718, 728 (6th Cir.2007) (unpublished opinion) (state checked box indicating no harmless-error argument). The State cites no cases, however, for the proposition that waiver of harmless error must be express, and this circuit's case law indicates that harmless error can be waived even by relying on ... a perfunctory discussion. United States v. Johnson, 467 F.3d 559, 564 (6th Cir.2006). [10] Finally, the State urges us to conduct harmless-error review sua sponte. We have no obligation in this regard but may do so in our discretion. Sowell v. Bradshaw, 372 F.3d 821, 830 (6th Cir.2004). In light of the State's decision not to raise this argument to the district court despite having every reason to do so, we decline to reach the issue. See id. Because we hold that the State waived harmless-error review, the writ must issue. [11]