Court Opinion

ID: 9497224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:46:10.532979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:04.195082
License: Public Domain

ROGERS, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result and in much of the majority’s opinion. It is not sufficiently clear to me, however, that on collateral review the Michigan Supreme Court relied upon MCR 6.508(D)(3), where such an inference relies entirely upon our after-the-fact determination that (D)(3) rather than (D)(2) was the appropriate provision to rely upon. In Burroughs, in contrast, it was “undisputed that Burroughs failed to properly present his arguments for state appellate review.” 282 F.3d at 413. However, for the reasons given in the majority’s discussion of Douglas, Bruton, and Frazier, petitioner has not adequately shown a violation of the Confrontation Clause under applicable Supreme Court precedents.