Legal Document

Cite as: 578 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JEFFREY WOODS, WARDEN v. TIMOTHY ETHERTON ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 15–723. Decided April 4, 2016 PER CURIAM. In the fall of 2006, Michigan law enforcement received an anonymous tip that two white males were traveling on I–96 between Detroit and Grand Rapids in a Audi, possibly carrying cocaine. Officers spotted vehicle matching description pulled it over for speeding. Respondent Timothy Etherton was driving; Ryan Pollie passenger seat. A search car uncovered 125.2 grams cocaine compartment at bottom driver side door. Both arrested. tried state court single count possession with intent to deliver At trial facts reflected not contested. The central point contention instead whether belonged or Pollie. testified prosecution pursuant plea agreement. He claimed he had accompanied from Detroit, knowing intended obtain there. According Pollie, once pair arrived left him alone restaurant drove off, returning some 45 minutes later. It only after they headed back revealed obtained drugs. also called several police officers testify. Three described content leading Etherton’s arrest. On third recounting tip, counsel objected hear- say grounds, but objection resolved when 2 WOODS prosecutor agreed move on. closing, tip. instructed jury “the evidence,” admitted “only show why did what did.” App. Pet. Cert. 88a. convicted Etherton, his conviction affirmed direct appeal. Supreme Court denied leave People 483 Mich. 896, 760 N.W.2d 472 (2009). sought postconviction relief six grounds. are relevant here: First, admission violated rights under Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment. Second, ineffective failing object ground. And third, appeal raise assistance claims. habeas rejected first claims procedural grounds merits. To pre- vail claim appellate coun- sel, explained, demon- strate “appellate counsel’s decision pursue issue fell below objective standard reason- ableness representation so prejudiced [him] as deprive fair trial.” 87a–88a. concluded failed both counts. reasoned, may have reasonably forgone any concluding failure product ineffectiveness strategy. While current argues should because tip’s reference “two men” suggested involvement by outset, Brief Opposition 20–21, Pollie’s prior involvement, contrary testimony 3 picked up nothing do it. As ex- plained, objecting would been consistent “strategy defendant’s non- possible responsibility (who charged).” determined, choice: there “ample evidence” guilt complained errors, even if true, changed outcome” case. Id., 89a. allegations, concluded, ultimately overcome presumption functioned pursuing Con- frontation Ibid. Appeals next federal relief. Under Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), available court’s “was to, involved unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, determined United States.” 28 U.S. C. §2254(d)(1). “A determi- nation lacks merit precludes long ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ correctness decision.” Harrington Richter, 562 86, 101 (2011) (quoting Yarborough Alvarado, 541 652, 664 (2004)). must be “so lacking justification error well understood comprehended existing beyond possibility fairminded disagreement.” White Woodall, 572 ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., 4) (internal quotation marks omitted). When is one counsel, moreover, AEDPA review “doubly deferen- tial,” Cullen Pinholster, 563 170, 190 (2011), be- 4 cause “strongly presumed rendered adequate made all significant decisions exercise reasonable professional judgment,” Burt Titlow, 571 (2013) 9) Strickland Washington, 466 668, 690 (1984); in- ternal such circumstances, courts afford “both defense attorney benefit doubt.” Burt, supra, 1). District relief, Ap- peals Circuit reversed part, dissent Judge Kethledge. majority constitution- ally ineffective, no jurist con- clude otherwise. Rivard, 800 F.3d 737 (2015). Without ruling merits holding we disagree deter- mination reach conclusion, accordingly reverse. finding cluded right confrontation vio- lated. prohibits out-of-court statement its truth. Crawford 36, 60, n. 9 (2004). Cir- cuit contents their truth referenced three different witnesses mentioned closing argument. These “repeated references existence details went far necessary background,” “indicating truth.” F.3d, 751. found preju- diced violation, showing make either forfeited objection, see 5 Carines, 460 750, 763–764, 597 130, 138–139 (1999) (showing prejudice required forfeiture), claim, Strick- land, 687 demonstrate counsel). prejudice, acknowledged evidence guilt: inches Etherton; owned car; driving time But, according majority, enough convict Ether- ton absent testimony. where came in. “Because much reflect- ed put before jury,” stated, improperly thereby testifying truthfully— unlikely coincidence testi- mony line accusation.” 753. reaching these conclusions, apply appropriate AEDPA. “fairminded jurist” conclude repetition establish uncontested conveyed submitted Such might conclusion placing weight fact disputed. No precedent this forecloses view. realm corresponded facts. After all, himself privy information contained judge accord- ingly regard corre- sponded unremarkable pertinent credibility. (In fact, actually Rapids.) 6 underlying complaint lawyer’s meant “no opportu- nity cross-examine tipster.” 11. But objectively unreason- able conclude—especially light deference afforded Strickland— due competence uncon- tested event de- fense. See Harrington, U.S., 105 (“Even de novo review, judging repre- sentation most deferential one.”). similarly conclude, again deferring incompetent draw- ing same conclusion. final Circuit, jurist— applying AEDPA— certainly deciding Strickland, she Strickland. Given AEDPA, doubt. ___. Because counts, grant petition certiorari reverse judgment Appeals. ordered.

Classification Label: 0