Document: Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PHILIP PARKER, WARDEN v. DAVID EUGENE MATTHEWS ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 11–845. Decided June 11, 2012 PER CURIAM. In this habeas case, the United States Court of Ap- peals for Sixth Circuit set aside two 29-year-old mur- der convictions based on flimsiest rationales. The court’s decision is a textbook example what Antiter- rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA) proscribes: “using federal corpus review as vehi- cle to second-guess reasonable decisions state courts.” Renico Lett, 559 U.S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 12). We therefore grant petition certiorari reverse. I Between 2 a.m. morning 29, 1981, respondent David Eugene Matthews broke into Louis- ville home he had until recently shared with his estranged wife, Mary Marlene (Marlene). At time, Matthews’ mother-in-law, Magdalene Cruse, was staying her daughter. found Cruse in bed shot head point-blank range, using gun purchased borrowed funds hours before. left there mortally wounded went next room, where wife. He sexual relations once or twice; stayed about 6 a.m.; then twice, killing her. would die from wound later that day. apprehended moth- er’s house, already begun wash PARKER clothes wore during crime. Later day, police officers murder weapon secreted below floorboards backyard shed property. station, made tape-recorded statement detective which denied responsibility murders. A grand jury indicted murders burglary. trial, did not contest killed victims. Instead, sought show acted under “extreme emotional disturbance,” Kentucky law serves reduce homicide otherwise be first-degree manslaughter. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§507.020(1)(a), 507.030(1)(b) (West 2006). As support claim, pointed trou- bled history marriage Marlene. wife been frequently separated one another, their periods separation were marked by extreme hostility. regularly procure criminal war- rants against Matthews; several weeks before she obtained charging abuse Marlene’s 6-year-old daughter, led Mat- thews’ spending roughly three jail. Witnesses also testified control when they together yell him across street separated; mother recounted leave couple’s young child crying late night outside house sleeping order antagonize him. introduced testimony psychia- trist, Dr. Lee Chutkow, who evaluated Matthews. Chutkow related told murders, including drinking heav- ily taking Valium stimulant drug. Chut- kow diagnosed suf- fering an adjustment disorder, described 3 “temporary behavioral disturbance individuals are subject variety stresses,” temporarily impair person’s judgment cause symptoms such “anxiety, nervousness, depression, even suicide attempts hurt other people.” Record 558. opinion acting influence time murders—in particular, experienced tension, irritabil- ity, almost kind fear wife,” id., 567, whom perceived having tormented emasculated convicted all charges, sentenced death. Supreme af- firmed sentence, rejecting 37 claims error. Commonwealth, 709 S.W. 2d 414, 417 (1985). response argument evidence insufficient establish absence disturbance, court concluded regarding “conduct before, after offense more than sufficient jury’s findings capital murder.” Id., 421. claim prosecutor committed misconduct closing rejected merits, but without discussion. Following unsuccessful postconviction proceed- ing, filed writ 28 C. §2254 District Western Kentucky. contended, among things, Su- preme contravened clearly established insuffi- cient prove prosecutorial misconduct. dismissed petition, divided panel re- 4 versed instructions relief. 651 F.3d 489 (2011). II Under AEDPA, no authority issue unless Court’s “was contrary to, involved unreasonable application of, Federal law, determined States,” determination facts light presented State proceeding.” §2254(d). gave grounds its conclusion entitled relief “difficult meet . highly deferential standard,” Cullen Pinholster, 563 (2011) 9) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither valid. First, held impermissibly shifted burden proving Commonwealth failed beyond doubt. reasoned that, com- mitted offenses, allocation proof governed Ken- tucky Gall 607 S.W.2d 97, 108 (1980), placed producing defendant, bur- den disturb- ance those cases defendant raise doubt issue. According Circuit, however, departed understanding case 5 “entirely defendant,” F. 3d, 500. Circuit’s interpretation supported cer- tain aspects case. For example, indicated “present[ed] extensive evidence” yet sufficiency-of-the-evidence finding “far overwhelming,” rather stating it thews, 2d, 420–421. observed clarified Wellman Com- monwealth, 694 696 (1985), “absence element crime must affirma- tively prove.” Matthews, supra, Cir- cuit’s view, reliance formulation resolving appeal violated Due Process Clause, construed Bouie City Columbia, 378 347, 354 (1964), because retroactive “ ‘unexpected indefen- sible’ ” judicial revision statute. initial assessment upon relevant if formed sole basis denial claim. It clear, did. explained “[t]he trial regard emo- tional adequate, intentional Those required find “under justification excuse circumstances believed them be.” 625, 628–629. submitted assigned carried, adequate sustain finding. That ground reject so irrelevant invoked questionable validity. See Wetzel Lambert, 565 ___–___ (per curiam) 4–5).1 challenges conclu- sion disturbance. have said “it jury—not court—to decide —————— An ambiguously worded footnote opinion, see 489, 504, n. (2011), suggests may additional due process violation. referred 109 “[u]nless raising [of disturbance] probative force matter acquittal higher charge (murder), prosecution come forth negating proof.” Relying own Gall’s proceeding, Parker, 231 265 (CA6 2000) (Gall II), suggested quoted “require[d] bear heavy disproving doubt,” 5, violation Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684 (1975). so. state- ment explicitly acknowledges rests prosecution, merely asserts production prosecution’s satisfied introduction evidence, defendant’s law. seems us truism. J. Strong, McCor- mick Evidence §338, pp. 419–420 (5th ed. 1999). Our addressed situation persuasion S., 702, 31; does remotely truism 7 conclusions should drawn admitted trial,” Cavazos Smith, 1, 1). conviction whenever, “after viewing most favorable any rational trier fact could essential elements doubt.” Jackson Virginia, 443 307, 319 (1979). And state-court sufficiency challenge overturned “decision ‘objectively unrea- sonable.’ Cavazos, twice-deferential standard, abun- dantly clear rejection controlling proceeding. noted expressed retreat cross-examination. But ample point- ing direction well. observed, belied “the crime,” 421—including money purchase day waited buying starting wife’s home, delayed between shooting mother-in-law behavior “[taking] steps hide clean clothes,” “giv[ing] false police.” Ibid. discounted deliberateness consciousness wrongdoing inconsistent diagnosis 3d., 4. expert trigger conclusive pre- 8 sumption correctness, conclude jurors consider tension Chutkow’s common-sense conflict favor testi- mony, overstepped proper limits authority. Jackson, 326. More fundamentally, appear possibility inadequate estab- lish manslaughter law: “acted explanation excuse, reason- ableness viewpoint person circum- stances §507.020(1)(a). himself agreed many people face anxiety—two attributed 579–580. suffer disor- ders. 592. course very few commit these points, characterization mental condition reasonableness conduct, objectively error conclud- question properly resolution. B second decision, certain remarks constituted process. This merits (albeit analysis) receives AEDPA standard. 9 Harrington Richter, 562 8). “clearly law” here our Darden Wainwright, 477 168 (1986), prosecutor’s improper comments will violate Constitution only ‘so infected unfairness make resulting process.’ 181 (quoting Donnelly DeChristoforo, 416 637, 643 (1974)). suggesting colluded lawyer, Busse, manu- facture defense. although lengthy section understood collusion,2 address full text objectionable follows: “He’s arraigned, meets attorney either tells at- torney, didn’t do it. One other. But, knows is. By way, is, while he’s giving statement, it’s sitting right front Homicide Office. Here’s gun. shoes, David. ‘Nah, nah, never saw money. wasn’t there. asleep.’ He’s denying “And think? His sees evi- dence, going through mind, legal can have? What man’s defense? Self protection? No, there’s 310 North 24th Street. No that. Protection another? Lytle isn’t protecting over Intoxication? Yeah, well, night. Maybe mean something. “But enough, Ladies Gentlemen. Mr. Busse has contact psychiatrist client, comes client month arrest, defense form Doctor you think guy aware what’s 10 immediately followed portion expressly disavowed suggestion collusion: that’s say unethical. Not all. best get, has, doc- tor say, doctor gets stand perjures himself. telling truth. wouldn’t perjure any- thing. truth, Gentle- men.” 674. With immediate clarification alleging collusion feature unsupportable. Nor pros- ecutor’s “enhance[d] story Chutkow,” ibid., suffice justify context, part broader motive exaggerate meetings Chutkow. Shortly continued series rhe- torical questions: “Don’t fears things on? competent. work attorney, enhances drinking. lot. lot pills, too, let me tell pills taking. purpose enhancing psychiatrist? Don’t might doing mother? over- extent intoxication It’s last resort, way out.” 673–674. 11 overstate psychiatrist?” cited precedent sup- port prohibits prosecu- emphasizing exculpatory facts. “denigrated [extreme itself,” 506, “[i]t’s comment too directed disturbance—i.e., unavailability raised stakes respect Moreover, direct- attention inappropriate considerations, lacking well comprehended existing fairminded disagreement.” Harrington, 13). Indeed, itself considerably inflammatory warrant 180, (prose- cutor ‘animal’ ”); 12 (“ ‘I wish [the defendant] face, blown away shotgun’ ”). Particularly standard general one, leaving courts “more leeway reaching outcomes case-by-case determinations,” Yarborough Alvarado, 541 652, 664 (2004)), conclusion. erred consulting prec- edents, Court, assessing decision. After quoting governing Darden, added “engag[e] step inquiry determine whether rises level unconstitutionality. ‘To satisfy , conduct both im- flagrant.’ 505 Broom Mitchell, 441 392, 412 2006)). evaluate flagrancy four factors derived precedent: ‘(1) likelihood tended mislead preju- dice defendant; (2) isolated extensive; (3) deliberately accidentally made; (4) total strength dence [Matthews].’ 506 Broom, 412). stated sufficiently similar to” unconstitutional prior II, 2000), “that rise impropriety.” 506. we correcting identical Terms ago, Renico, 11–12), circuit constitute Court,” §2254(d)(1). cannot AEDPA. precedents defended reflect established” cases. generalized evaluating bears scant resemblance elaborate, multistep test employed 13 here. To matters worse, decided pre-AEDPA 283, 2, purport out holdings. plain repetitive rely granting * respondent’s motion proceed forma pauperis granted. Appeals reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. ordered.

Category: 0