Opinion ID: 202609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the Appeals Court's Decision Contrary to Federal Law?

Text: 22 A federal court may provide habeas relief to a state court prisoner where the state court proceedings resulted in a decision that was contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). In Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389, the Supreme Court explained the two ways in which a state court decision might be contrary to federal law. First, a state court decision that applies an incorrect legal standard, or misstates the rule articulated in a Supreme Court case, will be contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Id. at 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495. The Court was careful to define incorrect, saying that it requires a legal standard that is substantially different, and thereby contradictory or opposite to the appropriate standard. Id. Second, if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [Supreme Court] precedent, that decision would also be contrary to federal law. Id. at 406, 120 S.Ct. 1495. 23 Ellen's only developed contrary to argument relies on the incorrect legal standard definition. 6 Here, the Massachusetts Appeals Court did not specifically refer to any Supreme Court precedent in its discussion of the arresting officer's testimony about Ellen's exercise of his right to remain silent after receiving Miranda warnings. 797 N.E.2d at 946. However, the Appeals Court cited to Commonwealth v. Mahdi, 388 Mass. 679, 448 N.E.2d 704 (1983). Mahdi discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Doyle at some length and accurately recites and applies the rule announced therein. Id. at 713-14. Further, although Mahdi was decided before Wainwright, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court predicted the rule later announced in Wainwright, saying: [W]e fail to see how use of evidence to infer sanity substantively differs from use to infer guilt. . . . Fundamental unfairness results from the use of evidence of such silence regardless whether the person exercising his or her constitutional right to remain silent claims insanity as a defense. Id. The state court thus accurately stated the governing federal law through its reliance on Mahdi. 24