Opinion ID: 172342
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Susan Smith Analogy During Voir Dire

Text: The Kansas Supreme Court found that an analogy to Susan Smith, while objectively unreasonable and therefore deficient, was not prejudicial. Near the close of Kurth's voir dire, Kurth said to the prospective jury: Everybody remember the Susan Smith case? I know it's been a few years. Anybody recognize that name? Little gal that finally fessed up to drowning her little children? Anybody remember that now few years ago? Remember how she went on TV in front of everybody saying, asking where her children were and what happened and it was emotional, just like this one will be, and you wanted to believe her because you couldn't believe that somebody would do that to her own children. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to tell you that's the same kind of situation we have here. Don't decide this case until you've heard it all, because you're definitely going to hear two sides. [2] ROA, Vol. II, at 362-63. The Kansas Supreme Court stated: We agree that Kurth's analogy to the Smith case during voir dire was objectively unreasonable. We can think of many better examples he could have cited to illustrate his point that the jury must reserve judgment until it had heard both sides of the story, examples that would not have had the unfortunate parallel of Smith's televised pleas for return of her children. 283 Kan. at 105, 150 P.3d 868. The Kansas Supreme Court ultimately found that the Susan Smith analogy, while clumsy and regrettable, did not prejudice Floyd. Id. at 106, 150 P.3d 868. The federal district court disagreed. The district court stated: In a case where the credibility of Tom Bledsoe versus [Floyd Bledsoe] was critical, counsel's errors in voir dire placed [Floyd] in a bad light, arguably comparing his trial to a case involving a woman who had murdered her children and blamed another person on television before their bodies were found. Mem. and Order at 37. We agree with the state that the district court failed to give the rulings of the Kansas Supreme Court proper deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The district court agreed with the conclusion of the Kansas Supreme Court that the Susan Smith analogy painted Floyd in a bad light. However, the district court did not give proper deference to the Kansas Supreme Court's equally reasonable conclusion that the analogy was not prejudicial because the point of the analogy was the value of waiting to hear both sides of the story. The Kansas Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Strickland to the facts before it. The Kansas Supreme Court's conclusion that the Susan Smith analogy was not prejudicial to Floyd was not objectively unreasonable under the AEDPA's standards.