Opinion ID: 39988
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: James Hearing & Express Findings

Text: Summers argues that the state court’s refusal to grant his motion for a James hearing—an independent hearing to determine the existence of a conspiracy—violated his due process rights. The Director points us to the record which indicates that, in response to Sum mers’s motion for a James hearing, the state trial judge looked to the results of the trial of the co-conspirator, Cantu, in lieu of an independent hearing. As before, AEDPA bars Summers’s claim because a James hearing is a product of Fifth Circuit jurisprudence, not the Supreme Court’s. While a James hearing is not mandated, Supreme Court precedent does require that “a court must be satisfied that the [co-conspirator’s] statement actually falls within the definition of the Rule.” Bourjaily, 843 U.S. at 175. Summers’s appeal could be read to articulate a claim demanding such a finding. However, this claim must also fail: - 18 - As a federal habeas court, we are bound by the state habeas court’s factual findings, both implicit and explicit. Under AEDPA, “a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). “The presumption of correctness not only applies to explicit findings of fact, but it also applies to those unarticulated findings which are necessary to the state court’s conclusions of mixed law and fact.” Valdez v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 941, 948 n.11 (5th Cir. 2001). Young v. Dretke, 356 F.3d 616, 629 (5t h Cir. 2004). As the state habeas court concluded, “The issues relating to [the co-conspirator statements] were raised, considered, and rejected on direct appeal. Because the state trial court admitted Cantu’s out-of-court statements under the coconspirator exception and, later, denied Summers’s motion for a directed verdict, the state trial court must have concluded that the conspiracy existed. See Fragoso, 978 F.2d at 900–01. Under AEDPA, the state court need do no more.