Document: Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2011) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JAVIER CAVAZOS, ACTING WARDEN v. SHIRLEY REE SMITH ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 10–1115. Decided October 31, 2011 PER CURIAM. The opinion of the Court in Jackson Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), makes clear that it is responsibility jury—not court—to decide what conclusions should be drawn from evidence admitted at trial. A reviewing court may set aside jury’s verdict on ground insufficient only if no rational trier fact could have agreed with jury. What more, a federal not overturn state decision rejecting suf- ficiency challenge simply because fed- eral disagrees court. instead do so was “objectively unreasonable.” Renico Lett, 559 ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., 5) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because people can sometimes disagree, inevitable consequence this settled law judges will encounter convictions they believe to mistaken, but must nonetheless uphold. Appeals case substituted its judgment for California jury question whether prosecution’s or defense’s expert witnesses more per- suasively explained cause death. For reason, certiorari granted and reversed. * This concerns death 7-week-old Etzel Glass. 2 CAVAZOS On November 29, 1996, Etzel’s mother, Tomeka, put sleep sofa before going herself another room. Respondent Shirley Ree Smith—Tomeka’s mother—slept floor next Etzel. Several hours later, Smith ran into Tomeka’s room, holding Etzel, who limp, told her “[s]omething [was] wrong Etzel.” Tr. 416. By time emergency officials arrived, breathing had heartbeat. reported she thought fallen off sofa. officials’ efforts resuscitate failed. Doctors initially attributed sudden infant syndrome (SIDS), customary diagnosis when an shows outward signs trauma. But after autopsy, coroner concluded shaken baby (SBS). When social worker informed finding, responded touch while sleep- ing, picked him up given “a little shake, jostle” wake him. Id., 842. According worker, then said something effect of, “Oh, my God. Did I it? Oh, God.” 847 In inter- view police few days corrected twisted try elicit reaction. arrested charged assault child resulting See Cal. Penal Code Ann. §273ab (West 2008) (“Any person who, having care custody under eight years age, assaults by means force reasonable would likely produce great bodily injury, child’s death, shall punished imprisonment . .”). At trial, heard seven medical testimony prosecution offered three experts, each whom attested result SBS—not SIDS, as defense 3 contended. first expert, Dr. Eugene Carpenter, examiner Los Angeles County Coroner supervised autopsy. Carpenter board certified forensic, anatomic, clinical pathol- ogy. He testified autopsy revealed recent hem- orrhages brain, he opined bleeding other features pathology, including bruise abrasion lower back baby’s head, were con- sistent violent shaking. identified two which shaking death: causes blood vessels brain tear, creating pool pushes downward spinal canal, direct damage brain. second itself sufficiently severe directly tears vital areas, causing very bleed- ing. injuries consistent latter pathology. also either fall administration cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Nor, according possible perished internal did testify, however, SBS victims often suffer retinal hemorrhaging, such injury. Stephanie Erlich, associate deputy actually performed She ana- tomic pathology neuropathology. corroborated Carpenter’s about findings, added followup neuropathological examination confirmed existence hemorrhag- Noting minimal amount new trauma brainstem. cross-examination, counsel hemorrhaging 4 (absent case) present 75 80 percent cases. third David Chadwick, pediatrics author articles childhood abusive old been called experts dispute these conclu- sions. first, pathologist Richard Siegler, died trauma, SBS, lack hemorrhaging. absence does exclude finding SBS. acknowledged SIDS. reached basis studying photographs examination. pediatric neurologist William Goldie, due noted born jaundice, heart murmur, low birth weight—making susceptible Goldie pathologists able determine resuscita- tion efforts. found guilty. Concluding “carefully weighed” “tremendous evidence” supporting verdict, 1649, trial judge denied Smith’s motion sentenced indeterminate term 15 life prison. review, contended sufficient establish After thoroughly competing testi- mony, Appeal rejected claim, concluding: 5 “The we summarized conflicting. It resolve flicts. credited substantial ficient support syndrome. conviction sup- ported evidence.” People Smith, B118869 (Feb. 10, 2000), App. K Pet. Cert. 86. Supreme review. J, id., 74. filed petition writ habeas corpus United States District Central California, renewing claim evi- dence prove Under Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, power afford relief unless show Appeal’s affirming convic- “was contrary to, involved unreasonable appli- cation of,” clearly established reflected holdings Court’s cases, 28 C. §2254(d)(1), based determination facts” light record, §2254(d)(2). Harrington Richter, 562 10). Magistrate Judge assigned issued report acknowledging “[t]his typi- cal case” against “raises many questions.” 65. nevertheless “clearly conviction.” Ibid. adopted Judge’s petition. G, 52. appeal, Ninth Circuit reversed instructions grant writ. Mitchell, 437 F.3d 884 (2006). Despite plentitude 6 record concluding shearing tearing brainstem Cir- cuit determined there “no permit conclusion one way other” physical shearing, shaking.” 890. State’s “reached [their] death.” (emphasis original). “[a]bsence cannot constitute proof beyond doubt,” ibid., “unreasonably applied” Virginia upholding conviction, F.3d, That plainly wrong. says long “after viewing most favorable prosecution, any essential elements crime doubt.” U.S., 319. unambiguously instructs “faced historical facts supports conflicting inferences presume— even affirmatively appear record—that resolved conflicts favor defer resolution.” 326. deference decisions required §2254(d) applied court’s already deferen- tial see Renico, S., 11), doubt Circuit’s error below. presented views how died. made aware various experts’ qualifications their familiarity both subject condition body. ob- served attorneys party cross-examine concessions them. 7 entitled believe, with, best ex- plained by, caused assertion death” false. There “evidence itself.” indications subdural subarachnoid around optic nerves, presence clot between brain’s hemispheres. head. These affirmative formed his tore. Defense certain understood unable identify precise point itself. Bea dissent denial rehearing en banc, why location tear undetectable: “Etzel’s happened quickly effects develop.” 453 1203, 1207 prosecutions’ oppor- tunity swelling occur erred ver- dict irrational, let alone think otherwise. §2254(d). Doubts guilty are understandable. job Court, Circuit, theory correct. decided question, 8 supported record.* has prison, enough, poses danger society. considerations perhaps grounds seek clemency, prerogative executive authorities help ensure justice tempered mercy. process invoked, or, so, course been. Judicial Branch standards discretion. If clemency exercised too generous stingy way, calls political correctives, judicial intervention. below allowed stand. vacated remanded twice before, calling panel’s attention opinions high- lighting necessity courts Each panel persisted course, reinstating without seriously confronting significance cases atten- tion. Patrick 550 915 (vacating remanding Carey Musladin, 549 70 (2006)), reinstated remand, 508 1256 (2007) (per curiam); 558 remand- ing McDaniel Brown, curiam)), remand sub nom. Mitch- ell, 624 1235 curiam). Its refusal necessitates action today. respondent’s —————— dissent’s review over precisely sort reweighing precluded 307, 324 second-guessing applying AEDPA, “adamant- ly” testify today opposed post, (opinion GINSBURG, J.), pure speculation, react less adamant testimony. 9 proceed forma pauperis granted. reversed, further proceedings opinion. ordered. J., dissenting JUSTICE BREYER SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting. summary disposition case, judgment, misuse out reasons discretion, soundly exercised, occasioned California’s reviewed respondent instance concluded, today, unwar­ ranted. observed, evidence, “though raises questions”: “Grandmothers, especially those serving primary caretakers, typical perpetrators [in cases]. Further, [Smith] helping daughter raise children (a [4-year-old] 14-month-old) hint abusing neglecting children, room Still further, precipitating event might snap grandson. trapped hopeless situa­ want love. Nor forced single-handedly crying all day night. fact, doing anything than sleeping night addition, [Smith’s] [Tomeka], door either, some telltale usually exist case.” Case CV 01–4484– ABC (CD Cal., Mar. 22, 2004), p. rec­ ommendation deny petition, certificate appealability, recognizing “reasonable jurists find [court’s] assessment claims debatable.” Order 01–4484–ABC Apr. Doc. 36, 1. full briefing argument, judgment. limitations authority. “We approach case,” said, “with firm awareness strict limits [Antiterrorism (AEDPA)] places our collateral criminal convictions.” 884, 888–889 (CA9 2006). Accurately describing applicable AEDPA detail, “[i]n unusual case,. [California] unreasonably Jackson.” 889. Beyond reviews tragic extraordinary intensive. taking ask, achieve prolong suffering separation family. Is intervention really neces­ sary? Our routine practice counsels no. Error correction “outside mainstream functions.” E. Gressman, K. Geller, Shapiro, T. Bishop, & Hartnett, Practice §5.12(c)(3), 351 (9th ed. 2007). As Rule 10 informs, “[a] rarely asserted [is] misapplication properly stated rule law.” cor­ rectly described relevant legal rules Virginia. therefore, law­ clarifying role play. adjudication seems me untoward reasons: now known (SBS) casts grave charge leveled Smith; uncontra­ dicted whatever family anyone else turn supervisor, following symptoms for, SBS: cerebral edema, hemor­ rhage, hemorrhage, joints neck, bruises arms, fractures ribs, buttocks, abdominal organs, chest organs. 575. Few here. hemorrhage subarach­ noid “minimal,” 540–541, 557–558, 675, 693, 700, 729, 1484– 1485. rhage eye. 580, 802, 1274.1 Similarly absent fractures, sprains, joints, displacement joints. 682. “tiny” skin corresponding scalp 555, 562, 576, 712–713. findings led supervi­ swelling. conceded 1478. sor, commonly proffered cases: massive create pres­ sure push downward. 541, 551–552, 729–730, 801. Instead, opined, injury—shearing brain­ stem 694–696, 801, 1298. grossly microscopically. 730, 763, 803–804, 1298–1299. particular areas injured, neuropathologist specific inju­ ry. 696, 1475. No doctor located tear. Indeed, examining physicians cut open stem, submit neuropathology, because, own estimation, “[w]e wouldn’t seen anyway.” 803, 1299.2 Neither ever similar reached. physician literature belief 801–802. maintained external head skull, injury necessarily 576–577, 660–661. thus turned on, Erlich it, “direct don’t brainstem.” gave pause “[i]t difficult concept absorb.” Reason suspect Carpenter-Erlich thesis Chadwick mentioned methods, standard medi­ examiners’ offices used here, reveal type damage. 1448, 1481–1482. grown 1997 Doubt increased community “over infants fatally injured through alone.” State Edmunds, 2008 WI 33, ¶15, 308 Wis. 2d 374, 385, 746 N.W.2d 590, 596. See, e.g., Donohoe, Evidence- Based Medicine Shaken Baby Syndrome, Part I: Literature Review, 1966–1998, 24 Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathology 239, 241 (2003) (By end 1998, become apparent “there inadequate scientific come aspects causation, diagnosis, treatment, matters pertaining SBS,” “the held [subdural hemorrhage] [retinal strong unsustainable.”); Bandak, Syndrome: Biomechanics Analysis Injury Mechanisms, 151 Foren­ sic Sci. Int’l 71, 78 (2005) (“Head acceleration velocity levels generate forces far neck withstand [A]n cervical spine questionable intracerebral consid­ ered.”); Minns, Theoretical Evidential Controversies, 35 Royal College Physicians Edinburgh 5, (“[D]iagnosing ‘shaking’ mechanism possible, unwitnessed incurred whole variety mechanisms solely combination.”); Uscin­ ski, An Odyssey, 46 Neurol. Chir. (Tokyo) 57, 59 (2006) (“[T]he hypothetical mecha­ nism manually intracranial misinterpretation experiment done different purpose, contra­ ry laws biomechanics apply specifi­ cally anatomy.”); Leestma, Brain-Injured Admittedly Infants, 54 Cases, 1969–2001, 26 199, 211 (“[M]ost pathologies allegedly babies impact body.”); Squier, Quest Evidence, 50 Developmental Child Neurology 13 (2008) (“[H]ead impacts onto carpeted floors steps heights feet range greater accelerations slamming bed.”). current information, unlikely adamantly 1997. Noteworthy regard, belated (i.e., chronic) nerves change initial cause­ of-death rebleeding infants. 608–609, 672–673, 721–722, 771, 776, 1269–1270, 1283. Recent undermines Miller Miller, Over­ representation Males Traumatic Brain Infancy Infants Macrocephaly, 31 165, 170 (“Small, asymptomatic hematomas] normal spontaneously rebleed forces, enlarge, hematoma, hemorrhages, neurologic dysfunction] year life. [This situation] mimic[s] abuse, past mistaken­ ly diagnosed not.”). hypotheses worthy considerable weight discre­ tionary take case. consider meager nonmedical evidence. abused grandchildren acted malicious intent question. indicated warm hearted, sensitive, gentle. 1086. earlier supra, 1, motive shake violently. Although quiet child, 601, showed died, 444. To contrary: Any loud woken siblings, Yondale, age 14 months, Yolanda, 4, asleep away, neighboring 335, 358–361. Yet one’s slumber disturbed. relied hearing changed Sudden Infant Syndrome (SIDS) syndrome, 840, stating jostle awaken him” unresponsive, asked “something like ‘Oh, God.’ ” 842, 847.3 contradicted account. accused killing started crying, 429–430, respond­ ed, “No, didn’t,” 387. Taking worker’s version events true, distraught equivocal fairly equated confession guilt. Giving him,” ante, omitted), unexpectedly surely admission violently, Smith: “If wasn’t you happened.” 847. Tomeka making statement effect. 389. Moreover, counsel, Ubiwe Eriye,4 represented poorly trying one, compe­ tent persuaded disbelieve examples illustrative. suppression hearing, presiding disturbed Eriye’s preparation remarked defendant, “Miss I’m scared.” A52. Eriye badly misportrayed burden declared, opening remarks, prove, shadow doubt, A58– A59, 213. testi­ mony hardly meshed.5 sum, notably fact-bound unquestionably correct law. inclined certiorari.” Kyles Whitley, 514 419, 460 (1995) (SCALIA, dissenting). Nevertheless, bent rebuking conceives defiance prior remands. 8. ignore plight choose fit opportunity teach lesson. granting qualified proper exer­ cise discretionary authority, resist reversal Appeals’ decision. fact­ intensive character attentive transcript runs 1,500 pages. Careful inspection aided adversarial presentation since resigned Bar discipline charges pending. con­ tribute 994–995, 1403. contrast, Siegler provided 1152– 1153, 1166–1167, 1193–1194. argument afford. R. Fallon, Manning, D. Meltzer, Hart Wechsler’s Federal Courts System 1480 (6th 2009) (posing “smack unfairness losing afforded filing briefs merits”); §6.12(c), 417, n. (ques­ tioning reliance summarily reversing, least affording parties, “particularly respondent,” brief critical issue portions record). Peremptory disposition, inappropriate consequences upsetting below: ten years, returned prison complete sentence fifteen Before depriving liberty currently enjoys, care, de­ fend release decade’s incarceration. stated, exercise discretion tragic, bound therefore

Category: 0