hodge v. mendonsa, 1st cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Hodge v. Mendonsa, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/25

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1825

I VAN HODGE,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ee,

v.

ANTHONY MENDONSA, Super i nt endent ,

Respondent , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. F. Denni s Sayl or I V, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Eva M. Badway, Assi st ant At t orney Gener al , Cr i mi nal Bur eau,wi t h whom Mart ha Coakl ey, At t orney Gener al of Massachuset t s, andThomas E. Boci an, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Cr i mi nal Bureau, wer eon br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Mi chael D. Cut l er f or appel l ee.

December 30, 2013


2/25

LYNCH, Chief Judge. Feder al habeas pet i t i oner I van Hodge

was convi ct ed, al ong wi t h co- def endant O' Nei l Franci s, by a

Massachuset t s j ur y i n March 2007 of second- degr ee mur der of Tacary

J ones and anot her char ge, st emmi ng f r oma Mar ch 2005 shoot i ng on an

MBTA bus i n Bost on. Hodge' s convi ct i ons were af f i r med on appeal by

t he Massachuset t s Appeal s Cour t ( "MAC" ) i n November 2010.

Commonweal t h v. Fr anci s, 78 Mass. App. Ct . 1107, 936 N. E. 2d 453

( 2010) ( unpubl i shed t abl e opi ni on) . The Massachuset t s Supr eme

J udi ci al Cour t ( "SJ C" ) deni ed f ur t her r evi ew i n Apr i l 2011.

Commonweal t h v. Fr anci s, 459 Mass. 1110, 947 N. E. 2d 42

( unpubl i shed t abl e opi ni on) ( 2011) . Hodge i s pr esent l y ser vi ng a

l i f e sent ence f or second- degr ee mur der .

I n J une 2013, a f eder al di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed Hodge' s

pet i t i on f or a wr i t of habeas cor pus under 28 U. S. C. 2254. Hodge

v. Mendonsa, No. 12- 10676- FDS, 2013 WL 3070660, at *12 ( D. Mass.

J une 14, 2013) . By pl aci ng t oo much wei ght on t he f act t hat t he

MAC opi ni on di d not expr essl y addr ess by name t he f ederal i ssue

t hat was r ai sed by pet i t i oner at t r i al and i n hi s habeas pet i t i on,

i t r eached t he mer i t s of t he pet i t i oner ' s argument s on i t s own,

wi t hout t he def er ence t o t he st at e cour t deci si on requi r ed by t he

Ant i t er r or i smand Ef f ect i ve Deat h Penal t y Act of 1996 ( "AEDPA") , 28

U. S. C. 2254.

The par t i es i n t hi s habeas case have char act er i zed i t as

pr esent i ng a pr ocedur al bar i ssue of whet her t he MAC per mi ssi bl y

-2-


3/25

f ound pet i t i oner had wai ved const i t ut i onal obj ect i ons t o t he

excl usi on of evi dence under Chamber s v. Mi ssi ssi ppi , 410 U. S. 284

( 1973) , by not pr esent i ng t hose obj ect i ons at t r i al . The MAC di d

not expr essl y di scuss t he Chambers ar gument by name i n i t s opi ni on.

But we vi ew i t as havi ng never t hel ess r ej ect ed the ar gument on t he

mer i t s because i t expr essl y r ej ect ed t he i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y and

t r ust wor t hi ness t hat woul d at a mi ni mum be r equi r ed i n or der t o

advance a successf ul argument under Chamber s and ci t ed a st at e

case, Commonweal t h v. Hear n, 31 Mass. App. Ct . 707, 583 N. E. 2d 279

( 1991) , whi ch di scussed and r ej ect ed Chamber s cl ai ms. As a

pr act i cal mat t er , t hi s r eadi ng par t i cul ar l y makes sense because,

were we not t o adopt such a r eadi ng, t he presumpt i on t hat we woul d

be r equi r ed t o dr aw under J ohnson v. Wi l l i ams, 133 S. Ct . 1088,

1096 ( 2013) woul d l ead us t o t he same poi nt . The MAC' s concl usi on

was nei t her an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of nor cont r ar y t o

Chamber s. 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ( 1) .

I n addi t i on, t o t he extent t he MAC f ound i n a f oot not e

t hat pet i t i oner asser t ed on appeal a new t hi r d- par t y cul pr i t t heor y

of admi ssi bi l i t y f or t hi s same evi dence and t hat i t was never

r ai sed i n t he t r i al cour t , we f i nd t hat r evi ew of t he t hi r d- par t y

cul pr i t t heor y i s pr ocedur al l y bar r ed. Accor di ngl y, t he gr ant of

t he pet i t i on f or habeas cor pus r el i ef i s r ever sed.

I .

A. Fact ual Backgr ound

-3-


4/25

On March 18, 2005, J ones, havi ng j ust boarded an MBTA bus

i n t he Dor chest er sect i on of Bost on, was shot and ki l l ed. Bot h

Hodge and Fr anci s wer e charged wi t h and ul t i matel y convi ct ed of t he

second- degr ee murder of J ones, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, 1,

and car r yi ng a f i r ear m wi t hout a l i cense, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

269, 10( a) . They wer e t r i ed on a t heory whi ch per mi t t ed a

f i ndi ng of gui l t as ei t her a pr i nci pal or a j oi nt vent ur er and bot h

wer e f ound gui l t y on gener al ver di ct s.

J ones and Hodge had a hi st or y of al t er cat i ons, havi ng

pr evi ousl y been ar r est ed f or f i ght i ng i n t he second f l oor men' s

r est r oom of t he Dor chest er Di st r i ct Cour t house i n 2003.

On March 18, 2005, Hodge and Fr anci s were bot h r i di ng t he

MBTA bus as i t t r avel ed down Col umbi a Road. When t he bus st opped

at i t s Geneva Avenue st op, J ones boarded t hr ough t he back door

al ong wi t h ar ound si x ot her young men. Af t er J ones and hi s f r i ends

boar ded, t her e was an al t er cat i on i nvol vi ng J ones, Hodge, and

Franci s. J ones was shot and ki l l ed.

On habeas r evi ew, f i ndi ngs of f act made by a st ate cour t

"shal l be pr esumed t o be cor r ect . " 28 U. S. C. 2254( e) ( 1) . That

pr esumpt i on ext ends t o f i ndi ngs made on appeal . Tet i v. Bender ,

507 F. 3d 50, 58 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . Var i ous eyewi t nesses t est i f i ed at

t r i al . As r equi r ed by l aw, we accept t he MAC' s st at ement of t he

t est i mony:

Eyewi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat [ Franci s andHodge] boar ded the bus t oget her and sat down

-4-


5/25

t oget her . As t he bus approached t he GenevaAvenue bus s t op, wi t nesses saw Hodge pass acamouf l age kni f e t o Fr anci s, who passed i tback t o Hodge; and, when [ J ones] and hi sf r i ends boar ded t he bus at t hat st op, bot h[ Fr anci s and Hodge] got up t o exi t and

conf r ont t he vi ct i m. Shal onda Smi t h t est i f i edt hat she hear d Hodge say, " [ W] e' ve got t hatt hi ng, " and " [ W] e coul d get hi mnow, why wai t ,l i ke, what ar e we wai t i ng f or , " and " I shoul dshank hi m up, " at whi ch poi nt Franci s pul l edout a pal m- si zed gun. Another wi t ness, whowas dr i vi ng di r ect l y behi nd t he bus, hear d a" l oud pop, " and saw [ Fr anci s and Hodge]st andi ng out si de the r ear of t he bus, smi l i ngand l aughi ng. The same wi t ness al so saw Hodget uck a bl ack, semi aut omat i c gun i nt o hi swai st band or pant s pocket . [ Franci s andHodge] wer e observed f l eei ng f r om t he scenet ogether and l at er were seen r unni ng away f r omt he pl ace where t he murder weapon was f oundt oget her wi t h an ar my kni f e and cl ot hi ngmat chi ng t hat wor n by Hodge. On t he basi s oft hi s evi dence, a r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i ndt hat Franci s was gui l t y of second degr eemur der and unl awf ul possessi on of a f i r ear mr egar dl ess of who f i r ed t he f at al shot .

Franci s, 936 N. E. 2d at *1.

The t r i al evi dence showed t hat bot h Hodge and Fr anci s

wer e det ai ned f or quest i oni ng shor t l y af t er t he i nci dent . Hodge

made a st atement t o t he pol i ce, whi ch was admi t t ed at t r i al . He

i ni t i al l y ref used t o per mi t hi s st at ement t o be t ape r ecor ded.

Four hour s af t er gi vi ng hi s i ni t i al st at ement , however , Hodge gave

a second, r ecorded st atement , whi ch was not admi t t ed at t r i al . 1 I n

1 I n t he r ecorded st atement , not heard by t he j ur y, Hodgecl ai med t hat he hear d a shot af t er he had got t en of f t he bus.Hodge' s r ecorded st atement was deemed i nadmi ssi bl e at t r i al . TheMAC af f i r med t he t r i al cour t ' s i nadmi ssi bl i t y det er mi nat i on,r easoni ng t hat t he st atement was i nadmi ssi bl e under t he doct r i ne of

-5-


6/25

bot h st at ement s, Hodge pl aced hi msel f on t he bus at or around t he

t i me of t he shoot i ng. Hodge cl ai med he hear d a gun shot .

Fol l owi ng t he shot , Hodge cl ai med t hat he f l ed t he scene,

di scardi ng hi s hat and j acket i n t he pr ocess. Hodge was ar r est ed

t hat ni ght . On Mar ch 21, 2005, Hodge was arr ai gned on a murder

char ge.

When Fr anci s was i nt err ogat ed, he ref used to make a

st at ement t o t he pol i ce, i nvoki ng hi s r i ght t o counsel . Franci s

was rel eased af t er quest i oni ng. Franci s was i ndi ct ed by a gr and

j ury on May 3, 2005. 2

B. Tr i al Cour t Pr oceedi ngs as t o St at ement s by Fr anci s

Hodge and Fr anci s wer e t r i ed as co- def endant s bef ore the

Suf f ol k Super i or Cour t ( "t r i al cour t ") . Bef or e t r i al , Franci s

moved t o suppr ess cer t ai n st at ement s he had made t o members of

Hodge' s f ami l y and t o Hodge' s at t orney, on t he gr ounds t hey were

i nvol unt ar y. Fol l owi ng a hear i ng, t he t r i al cour t deni ed t he

mot i on, f i ndi ng beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat Franci s' s s t at ement s

wer e vol unt ary. I t i s t hese st atement s whi ch Hodge now says shoul d

have been admi t t ed at t r i al at hi s r equest .

ver bal compl et eness. Franci s, 936 N. E. 2d at *2.

2 Franci s was i ndi ct ed af t er a gr and j ur y hear d wi t nessdescr i pt i ons of a meet i ng bet ween Fr anci s and Hodge' s at t orney t heday af t er Hodge' s ar r ai gnment . Franci s' s st at ement s to Hodge' sat t or ney wer e excl uded at t r i al , as di scussed bel ow.

-6-


7/25

Franci s' s s t at ement s as est abl i shed dur i ng the hear i ng on

Franci s' s mot i on t o suppr ess wer e as f ol l ows. 3 On t he weekend of

March 19- 20 af t er t he March 18 shoot i ng, Fr anci s spoke wi t h Hodge' s

st epbr ot her , Spencer Gr ay. Accor di ng t o Gr ay, Franci s st at ed t hat

he and Hodge boar ded t he bus t oget her , havi ng j ust come f r om a

medi cal appoi ntment f or Hodge. He and Hodge were r i di ng t he bus

t oget her when J ones and t he ot her young men boar ded and st ar t ed an

argument wi t h hi m and Hodge. Fr anci s st ated t hat one of t he young

men wi t h J ones pul l ed a gun. Fr anci s t hen pul l ed out hi s own gun,

whi ch, accor di ng t o Fr anci s, ki cked up and f i r ed, hi t t i ng J ones i n

t he chest . Franci s sai d t hat he di d not mean t o ki l l J ones.

Franci s al so sai d t hat Hodge had got t en of f t he bus bef or e t he

shoot i ng. Thi s st at ement was not consi st ent wi t h hi s ot her

st atement s, as we descr i be next .

The mor ni ng af t er Hodge' s ar r ai gnment , Fr anci s, at t he

ur gi ng of members of Hodge' s f ami l y, met wi t h Hodge' s appoi nt ed

at t orney, J ohn Cunha. Cunha r ecount ed t he meet i ng bef ore t he gr and

j ury. Accor di ng t o Cunha, Fr anci s expl ai ned t o hi m, and l at er t o

hi s l aw par t ner Hel en Hol comb, t hat Fr anci s and Hodge had at t empt ed

t o exi t t he bus when J ones and hi s associ at es boar ded. Franci s

sai d t hat J ones and t he ot her young men bl ocked t he door way, at

3 The t r i al cour t descr i bed Fr anci s' s st at ement s f i r st i n i t sMemorandumand Or der denyi ng Fr anci s' s mot i on t o suppress and agai ni n i t s Memorandum and Or der denyi ng bot h def endant s' mot i on t osever , di scussed bel ow.

-7-


8/25

whi ch poi nt one of t he young men pul l ed a gun and poi nt ed i t at

Hodge. Fr anci s sai d he r eached out t o gr ab t he gun. Af t er

wr est i ng t he gun away, Fr anci s t ur ned and obser ved J ones, who,

accor di ng t o Franci s, was reachi ng t o hi s wai st . At t hat poi nt ,

Fr anci s cl ai med, t he young man f r omwhomFr anci s had t aken t he gun

t r i ed t o gr ab i t back. The gun t hen went of f , hi t t i ng J ones.

Accor di ng t o Cunha, Franci s i nsi st ed t hat hi s f i nger was not on t he

t r i gger when t he gun f i r ed. As bef or e, Franci s cl ai med t hat Hodge

had l ef t t he bus bef or e t he shot was f i r ed.

Accor di ng to Hodge' s counsel ' s r epr esent at i on to t he

t r i al cour t , Hodge' s mot her , Deni se Gr ay, observed Franci s speak to

hi s gr andmot her af t er hi s meet i ng wi t h Cunha. Franci s pur por t edl y

admi t t ed t o hol di ng t he gun when i t went of f . Franci s i nsi st ed t o

hi s grandmot her t hat he had t ol d Cunha t he t r ut h.

The t r i al cour t deni ed Fr anci s' s mot i on t o suppress t hese

st at ement s, f i ndi ng t hem t o be vol unt ar y.

Bot h Hodge and Fr anci s moved t o have t he t r i al sever ed.

I n hi s mot i on f or sever ance, Hodge argued, among other t hi ngs, t hat

t he st at ement s by Fr anci s, whi ch t he Commonweal t h mi ght i nt r oduce

as evi dence agai nst Franci s, wer e pr ej udi ci al hear say i nsof ar as

t hose st at ement s were i ncul pat ory as t o Hodge. Hodge r easoned t hat

Fr anci s' s st atement s wer e i ncul patory as t o Hodge because Fr anci s

cl ai med, f or exampl e, t o have seen Hodge change hi s cl ot hes and

"st ash" hi s j acket f ol l owi ng t he shoot i ng. Fol l owi ng a non-

-8-


9/25

evi dent i ar y hear i ng, t he t r i al cour t deni ed bot h mot i ons t o sever ,

r easoni ng t hat Franci s' s st at ement s coul d be r edact ed i f t hey wer e

i nt r oduced, so as t o avoi d any pr ej udi ci al ef f ect t o Hodge. 4 I n

t he end, t he Commonweal t h chose not t o i nt r oduce Franci s' s

st at ement s, al t hough i t had i ni t i al l y l i st ed Cunha as a t r i al

wi t ness f or t he pr osecut i on.

At t r i al , Hodge, havi ng ear l i er i n t he sever ance

pr oceedi ngs char act er i zed Franci s' s st at ement s as i ncul pat or y,

r ever sed cour se. Hodge sought t o i nt r oduce Franci s' s st at ement s t o

Cunha and t o member s of Hodge' s f ami l y as evi dence t hat Fr anci s,

not Hodge, was t he shoot er . The Commonweal t h opposed, ar gui ng t hat

t hi s was i nadmi ssi bl e hearsay and none of Hodge' s t heor i es of

admi ssi bi l i t y appl i ed. At t r i al , Hodge' s counsel ar t i cul at ed t hr ee

di st i nct t heor i es of admi ssi bi l i t y. Hodge' s tr i al counsel ar gued

f i r st t hat Franci s' s s t at ement s wer e admi ssi bl e as st at ement s by an

adver se par t y, r easoni ng t hat t he i nt er est s of t he t wo def endant s

wer e adver se f or pur poses of t he t r i al . See 9 Tr . 153 ( "So f i r st

of al l i t ' s admi ssi bl e because i t ' s a - - a st at ement by a par t y

opponent . " ) ; 10 Tr . 60 ( " I t ' s a st at ement by a par t y whi ch i s -

who i s adver se t o me i n t hi s l i t i gat i on and i t ' s as i f - i t ' s j ust

as i f t he Commonweal t h wer e t r yi ng t o i nt r oduce t hi s

t est i mony[ . ] ") .

4 I n hi s mot i on t o sever , Fr anci s made si mi l ar argument s ast o cer t ai n st at ement s by Hodge not at i ssue her e. The t r i al cour tr ej ect ed those argument s on si mi l ar gr ounds.

-9-


10/25

Hodge' s t r i al counsel ar gued next t hat Franci s' s

st atement s wer e admi ssi bl e as st atement s agai nst Fr anci s' s penal

i nt er est , r easoni ng t hat t he st atement s had been made af t er Franci s

had been rel eased f r om cust ody and Hodge had been pl aced under

ar r est . E. g. , 9 Tr . 158 ( "[ T] he f i r st st at ement [ t o Spencer Gr ay]

i s absol ut el y a st at ement agai nst penal i nt er est . He says, i t

ki cked up, I shot hi m, and - - and r emember t hi s i s i n t he cont ext

- - t hi s i s t he cont ext of ever yone t hi nki ng t hat Hodge had been

ar r est ed as t he shoot er . ") .

Fi nal l y, Hodge' s t r i al counsel ar gued t hat Fr anci s' s

st at ement s were admi ss i bl e as evi dence of consci ousness of

Franci s' s gui l t , r easoni ng t hat t he i nconsi st ency bet ween Franci s' s

st at ement s somehow showed Fr anci s' s awar eness t hat he was t he

shoot er . I d. at 208- 09 ( " I ' m of f er i ng i t f or - - pr i nci pal l y f or

t he pur pose t hat . . . i t was a pat ent l y f al se st at ement i n vi ew of

al l t he ot her evi dence t hat you' ve hear d i n t he case. . . . [ T] he

st or y t hat t he co- def endant gi ves t o Cunha i s pat ent l y f al se. I - -

I wi l l - - i n vi ew of al l of t he ot her evi dence i n t he case.

So . . . what i t shows i s, i t shows consci ousness of gui l t t hat he

was t he one t hat f i r ed t he gun. ") ; 10 Tr . 58 ( "I t hi nk i t ' s par t of

a cont i nuum t hat shows t hat t hi s par t i cul ar co- def endant had a

gui l t y mi nd, whi ch r ef l ect s t he f act t hat he was t he one t hat shot

t he gun. " ) .

-10-


11/25

I n t he cour se of ar gui ng t hese t heor i es of admi ssi bi l i t y,

Hodge' s t r i al counsel ci t ed Chamber s. 9 Tr . 212. Hodge' s t r i al

counsel expl ai ned:

[ T] hat was a case i n whi ch a co- def endant hadmade a conf essi on and t he t r i al j udge excl udedt he conf essi on as hear say. The conf essi on - -i n t he conf essi on he excul pated t he def endantwho was on t r i al and t he pr i nci p[ l e] t hat Igl ean f r om - - f r om t hat case and - - and t heU. S. Supr eme Cour t r ever sed t he convi ct i onsayi ng st at e - - st at e r ul es on hear say - -gener al l y we - - we subscr i be t o st at e r ul es onhear say, but t hey cannot be used t o i nt er f er ewi t h a def endant ' s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al . Andi t seems t o me t hat we' r e - - we' r e i n t hatt er r i t or y her e. That . . . t o pr event me - -Hodge f r om get t i ng t he st at ement s t hat t hi sco- def endant made and argui ng as I havei ndi cat ed t o t he cour t woul d i n ef f ect depr i vehi m of an ef f ect i ve def ense. And you can' tuse techni cal r ul es of hear say t o pr event ort o i nt er f er e wi t h a def endant ' s r i ght t o af ai r t r i al .

I d. at 212- 13.

Af t er hear i ng t est i mony f r om Cunha and Spencer Gr ay on

voi r di r e, 5 t he t r i al cour t excl uded Franci s' s st at ement s as

hear say, r ej ect i ng each of Hodge' s t r i al counsel ' s argument s f or

admi ssi bi l i t y. The cour t r ej ect ed t he t heor y t hat Fr anci s, a co-

def endant , was a part y opponent . As t o t he t heory t hat t he

st at ement s wer e agai nst Franci s' s penal i nt er est , t he t r i al cour t

r easoned t hat t he st atement s were i n no way i ncul patory as t o

Franci s si nce Franci s char act er i zed t he shoot i ng as an acci dent ,

5 The account s of Franci s' s st at ement s on voi r di r e wer econsi st ent wi t h pr et r i al account s.

-11-


12/25

and t her e was no conf essi on. The t r i al cour t r ul ed: " [ A] ccor di ng

t o t he test i mony of Mr . Cunha, t her e was no cr i me t hat Mr . O' Nei l

Franci s was conf essi ng t o or maki ng a st at ement about . " I d. at

215; see al so i d. at 209 ( "[ Fr anci s] sai d he di dn' t f i r e t he

gun. ") .

Beyond t hat , t he t r i al cour t r easoned, Franci s' s

st at ement s wer e not cor r obor at ed by ci r cumst ances i ndi cat i ng thei r

t r ust wor t hi ness. I t hel d: "The st at ement [ t o Cunha] was made i n - -

by an 18 year ol d i ndi vi dual wi t hout accompanyi ng f ami l y member s or

counsel , i n t he pr esence of t hr ee ol der member s of t he co-

def endant ' s f ami l y as wel l as t he co- def endant ' s l awyer . " I d. at

215.

Last , as t o t he consci ousness of gui l t t heor y, t he t r i al

cour t r easoned t hat Franci s' s st at ement s l acked t he i ndi ci a of

r el i abi l i t y t o be admi ssi bl e under t hat r ubr i c. The cour t st at ed:

"Agai n, i t was made t o . . . pr i vat e i ndi vi dual s, i ndeed t he

co- def endant [ ' ] s f ami l y and counsel , and agai n I do not see t he

ci r cumst ances of t r ust wort hi ness t hat woul d al l ow t he st at ement ,

agai n, even under a consci ousness of gui l t t heor y. " I d. at 216.

The j ur y r et ur ned gui l t y ver di ct s agai nst Hodge and

Fr anci s on both charges.

C. MAC Pr oceedi ngs

On appeal t o t he MAC, Hodge ar gued, among ot her t hi ngs,

t hat t he t r i al cour t commi t t ed r ever si bl e er r or by excl udi ng hi s

-12-


13/25

co- def endant ' s "cr edi bl e" " conf essi ons. " Hi s br i ef made an expr ess

const i t ut i onal ar gument . Hodge ar gued t hat excl usi on of Franci s' s

st at ement s "vi ol at ed [ Hodge' s] const i t ut i onal r i ght s t o pr oduce al l

f avorabl e pr oof s. " Hodge made t hr ee argument s concer ni ng Fr anci s' s

st at ement s: ( 1) t hey shoul d have been admi t t ed as st at ement s

agai nst penal i nt er est ; ( 2) t hey shoul d have been admi t t ed as

t hi r d- par t y cul pr i t evi dence, and ( 3) even i f not ot her wi se

admi ssi bl e, t hey shoul d have been admi t t ed as a mat t er of basi c due

pr ocess because t hey wer e "cr edi bl e conf essi ons" t hat excul pat ed

Hodge.

The MAC r ej ect ed t he t hi r d- par t y cul pr i t ar gument as

wai ved because i t was not r ai sed bel ow. Fr anci s, 936 N. E. 2d at *2,

n. 4. I t r ej ect ed t he "agai nst penal i nt er est " ar gument on t he

mer i t s by f i ndi ng t hat Franci s' s st at ement s wer e nei t her

conf essi ons nor ot her wi se accompani ed by i ndi ci a of

t r ust wor t hi ness. I d. at *2. The MAC made no expr ess ment i on of

t he f eder al due pr ocess ar gument . I t di d, however , ci t e

Commonweal t h v. Hearn, 31 Mass. App. Ct . 707, 711, 583 N. E. 2d 279

( 1991) , a case i n whi ch t he cour t bot h r ej ect ed an "agai nst penal

i nterest " argument and rej ect ed a Chamber s due pr ocess argument as

f ai l i ng f or i dent i cal reasons. I d. 6

6 The MAC al so rej ect ed var i ous ot her argument s by Hodge,none of whi ch are at i ssue on appeal .

-13-


14/25

D. Feder al Habeas Revi ew

Hodge t i mel y f i l ed a pet i t i on f or f eder al habeas r el i ef

on Apr i l 16, 2012. Agai n, Hodge argued t hat t he excl usi on of

Franci s' s st at ement s vi ol at ed due pr ocess, st at i ng:

The st at e t r i al cour t ' s er r oneous use of t heevi dent i ar y r ul e agai nst hear say t o gut t hepet i t i oner ' s onl y avai l abl e def ense, byexcl udi ng a power f ul l y excul pat or y andcorr oborated eyewi t ness exoner at i on i n a weaki ncul pat or y case ( and t he st at e appel l at ecour t s' r ef usal s t o even addr ess t hi s i ssue ont he pet i t i oner ' s di r ect appeal ) , vi ol at ed t hepet i t i oner ' s f undament al const i t ut i onal r i ghtt o ' a meani ngf ul oppor t uni t y t o pr esent acompl et e def ense, ' as cl ear l y est abl i shed byHol mes v. Sout h Carol i na, 547 U. S. 319, 324- 25( 2006) .

On J une 14, 2013, t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued a Memorandum

and Or der on Pet i t i on f or Habeas Corpus, gr ant i ng Hodge habeas

r el i ef , and di r ecti ng t hat "[ t ] he pet i t i oner i s t o be r el eased f r om

cust ody unl ess t he Commonweal t h moves t o ret r y hi m wi t hi n 60 days

f r om t he ent r y of j udgment , or such other t i me as may be set by

or der of t hi s Cour t or ot her cour t of compet ent j ur i sdi ct i on. "

Hodge, 2013 WL 3070660, at *12.

Because, i n i t s vi ew, " t he subst ance of pet i t i oner ' s

f eder al cl ai m was never addr essed by the st at e cour t s, " t he

di st r i ct cour t consi der ed Hodge' s due pr ocess cl ai ms de novo. I d.

at *5- 6. The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat "[ u] nder the

ci r cumst ances, t he excl usi on of t he evi dence appear s t o pr esent t he

ki nd of f undament al unf ai r ness agai nst whi ch t he const i t ut i onal

-14-


15/25

r i ght t o a def ense i s i nt ended t o pr ot ect . " I d. at *11. The

di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed t he Commonweal t h' s cont ent i on t hat any

const i t ut i onal er r or commi t t ed by t he t r i al cour t was "har ml ess. "

I d. at *12.

On J ul y 12, 2013, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he

r espondent ' s mot i on t o st ay t he J une 14, 2013 or der pendi ng appeal ,

and deni ed pet i t i oner ' s mot i on f or r el ease.

I I .

We r evi ew de novo a di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o gr ant or

deny a habeas pet i t i on under t he AEDPA. O' Laughl i n v. O' Br i en, 568

F. 3d 287, 298 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

We t ake t hi s case i n t wo st eps. The f i r st i s whet her t he

MAC i n f act addressed and r ej ect ed t he Chamber s cl ai ms as made at

t r i al . The second i s whet her f oot not e 4' s hol di ng t hat t he new

t hi r d par t y t heor y of admi ssi bi l i t y had not been asser t ed at t r i al

i s pl ausi bl e and so act s as a bar t o habeas r evi ew of a due pr ocess

cl ai m based upon t hat par t i cul ar t heor y of admi ssi bi l i t y.

As t o t he f i r st , t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ectl y obser ved

t hat t he MAC never st at ed t hat pet i t i oner had wai ved hi s Chambers

ar gument s. Thi s i s not sur pr i si ng gi ven t hat t he MAC addr essed t he

subst ance of t he admi ssi bi l i t y ar gument s pet i t i oner pr esent ed at

t r i al . I n addi t i on, t hr ough i t s ci t at i on of a st at e case, Hear n,

whi ch di scussed Chamber s expr essl y, t he MAC made suf f i ci ent l y cl ear

i t was r ej ect i ng t he due pr ocess cl ai ms suppor t ed by pet i t i oner ' s

-15-


16/25

admi ssi bi l i t y ar gument s whi ch had been r ai sed at t r i al . Thus i t s

r ul i ng const i t ut ed an adj udi cat i on on t he mer i t s. We expl ai n mor e

bel ow.

As t o t he second, t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y obser ved

t hat t he MAC hel d t hat pet i t i oner ' s newl y ar t i cul at ed t hi r d par t y

t heor y of admi ssi bi l i t y had been pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed at t r i al .

Thus, t o t he ext ent t hat pet i t i oner seeks t o asser t a new due

pr ocess cl ai mbased upon a t hi r d- par t y cul pr i t t heor y, we hol d t hat

t he MAC' s pr ocedur al def aul t hol di ng act s as a bar t o t hat cl ai m

onl y on f eder al habeas r evi ew.

A. The AEDPA and t he Chambers Argument s

The AEDPA set s f or t h t he st andar ds f or r evi ew of a

f eder al cl ai m "adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s i n St at e cour t

pr oceedi ngs. " 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) . Under t he AEDPA, an

appl i cat i on f or habeas cor pus i s not t o be gr ant ed wi t h r espect t o

such a cl ai m unl ess t he st at e cour t ' s adj udi cat i on of t he cl ai m

ei t her : ( 1) "r esul t ed i n a deci si on t hat was cont r ar y to, or

i nvol ved an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of , cl ear l y est abl i shed

Federal l aw, as det ermi ned by t he Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed

St at es, " or ( 2) " r esul t ed i n a deci si on t hat was based on an

unr easonabl e det er mi nat i on of t he f act s i n l i ght of t he evi dence

pr esent ed i n t he St at e cour t pr oceedi ng. " I d.

"I n cont r ast , a st at e cour t deci si on t hat does not

addr ess t he f eder al cl ai m on t he mer i t s f al l s beyond t he ambi t of

-16-


17/25

AEDPA. " Cl ement s v. Cl ar ke, 592 F. 3d 45, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Thi s

cour t r evi ews f eder al cl ai ms r ai sed but unadj udi cat ed i n st at e

cour t de novo. Lynch v. Fi cco, 438 F. 3d 35, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

And wher e t her e i s no expl i ci t di scussi on of t he ar t i cul at ed

f eder al const i t ut i onal i ssue ami dst t he di scussi on of i ssues i n t he

st at e cour t opi ni on, t he f eder al cour t must pr esume t he f eder al

cl ai m was adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s. J ohnson, 133 S. Ct . at 1095-

96.

The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat t he MAC di d not adj udi cat e

pet i t i oner ' s due pr ocess cl ai ms as pr esent ed at t r i al on t he

mer i t s. We di sagr ee.

The f act t hat t he MAC di d not express l y ci t e t o Chambers

or t o Hol mes does not r esol ve t he quest i on. Thi s cour t has

r ecogni zed r epeatedl y t hat a st ate cour t may deci de a f eder al

const i t ut i onal cl ai m"by r ef er ence t o st at e cour t deci si ons deal i ng

wi t h f eder al const i t ut i onal i ssues. " Di Benedet t o v. Hal l , 272 F. 3d

1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ; see al so Cl ement s, 592 F. 3d at 54 ( f i ndi ng

MAC had adj udi cat ed cl ai m on t he mer i t s wher e i t ci t ed st at e hi gh

cour t deci si on ci t i ng and appl yi ng U. S. Supr eme Cour t deci si on, and

so was ent i t l ed t o AEDPA def er ence) . Moreover , wher e " t he st ate

cour t ' s hol di ng squar el y addr essed t he mer i t s" of over l appi ng st at e

and f eder al cl ai ms, " i t woul d el evat e f or mover subst ance t o i mpose

some sor t of r equi r ement t hat busy st ate j udges pr ovi de case

ci t at i ons t o f eder al l aw . . . bef or e f eder al cour t s wi l l gi ve

-17-


18/25

def er ence t o st at e cour t r easoni ng. " Zul uaga v. Spencer , 585 F. 3d

27, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ; see al so i d. ( "Such f or mal i sm woul d be

cont r ar y t o t he congr essi onal i nt ent expr essed i n AEDPA. " ) .

I n t hi s case, t he MAC' s hol di ng adequat el y addr essed t he

mer i t s of pet i t i oner ' s admi ssi bi l i t y ar gument s r ai sed at t r i al and

argued on appeal . The MAC expr essl y descr i bed and r ej ect ed

pet i t i oner ' s cont ent i on t hat Franci s' s st at ement s wer e i ncul pat or y

as t o Fr anci s. Fr anci s, 936 N. E. 2d at *2 n. 3. I n addi t i on, t he

MAC f ound t hat Franci s' s st at ement s l acked al l i ndi ci a of

r el i abi l i t y. I d. at *2. These f i ndi ngs go t o t he hear t of Hodge' s

f eder al cl ai ms t hat due pr ocess r equi r ed admi ssi on of Franci s' s

"cr edi bl e" "conf essi ons. " When t he MAC f ound t he evi dence l acked

i ndi ci a of t r ust wor t hi ness, i t ar t i cul at ed t he r eason t he Chamber s

cl ai ms f ai l ed. See Chamber s, 410 U. S. at 300 ( observi ng t hat t he

"conf essi ons" at i ssue i n that case wer e made under ci r cumst ances

" assur [ i ng] . . . r el i abi l i t y" ) .

The MAC ci t ed Hearn, a case i n whi ch t he MAC r ej ect ed

ar gument s si mi l ar t o pet i t i oner ' s on bot h st at e and f eder al

const i t ut i onal gr ounds. I d. I n par t i cul ar , Hear n r ej ect ed ver y

si mi l ar Chambers due pr ocess cl ai ms:

The def endant ' s due process cl ai ms based on

Chamber s[ , 410 U. S. at 302] , and Gr een v.Geor gi a, 442 U. S. 95, 97[ ( 1979) ] , al so f ai l .As st at ed i n Commonweal t h v. Dr ew, 397 Mass.[ 65, ] 72 n. 6, 489 N. E. 2d 1233[ , 1239 ( 1986) ] ,"General l y, Chamber s based cl ai ms have beenconsi st ent l y r ej ected by t he cour t s. " I t i sonl y i n "r ar e and uni que ci r cumst ances" t hat

-18-


19/25

" t he excl usi on of evi dence under hear say r ul esdef eat s t he ends of j ust i ce and t her ebyvi ol at es the due pr ocess cl ause. " I d. at 72,489 N. E. 2d 1233. There was here none of t hei ndi ci a of t r ust wor t hi ness of evi dence sucht hat i t s excl usi on vi ol at ed f undament al

f ai r ness.

Hear n, 583 N. E. 2d at 283.

Under Chambers, due pr ocess wi l l somet i mes r equi r e

admi ss i on of hearsay st at ement s made "under ci r cumst ances t hat

pr ovi ded consi der abl e assur ance of t hei r r el i abi l i t y. " 410 U. S. at

300. Her e, t he ci r cumst ances of Franci s' s st at ement s pr ovi de no

assur ance of r el i abi l i t y what soever . I ndeed, Hodge hi msel f went so

f ar as t o char act er i ze Franci s' s st at ement s t o Cunha as "pat ent l y

f al se. " 9 Tr . 220. As t he t r i al j udge and t he MAC cor r ect l y

obser ved, Franci s' s s t at ement s wer e excul pat or y, not i ncul pat or y,

as t o Franci s. Franci s, 936 N. E. 2d at *2 & n. 3. Franci s' s

st at ement s cont r ast shar pl y wi t h t he mul t i pl e conf essi ons at i ssue

i n Chamber s. 410 U. S. at 300- 01 ( not i ng t hat " each conf essi on her e

was i n a ver y real sense sel f - i ncr i mi nat or y and unquest i onabl y

agai nst i nt er est " ) . And whi l e t he conf essi ons i n Chamber s wer e

made t o a "cl ose acquai nt ance, " i d. at 300, each of t he st atement s

her e was, as t he t r i al cour t observed, made t o par t i sans of co-

def endant Hodge.

I n t hese ci r cumst ances, we concl ude t hat t he MAC

consi der ed and rej ect ed on the mer i t s pet i t i oner ' s Chamber s cl ai ms

r ai sed at t r i al . Even i f our concl usi on wer e subj ect t o quest i on,

-19-


20/25

t he J ohnson pr esumpt i on woul d, i n the absence of cont r ary evi dence

pr esent ed by Hodge, r equi r e us t o t r eat t he f eder al cl ai ms as

havi ng been adj udi cated on t he mer i t s. 133 S. Ct . at 1095- 96. To

t he ext ent t he gr ant of habeas was pr edi cat ed upon t hose pr eser ved

Chamber s cl ai ms, Hodge' s pet i t i on f or habeas must f ai l unl ess t he

MAC' s deci si on "was cont r ar y t o, or i nvol ved an unr easonabl e

appl i cat i on of , cl ear l y est abl i shed Feder al l aw, as det er mi ned by

t he Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St ates. " 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) . We

f i nd no such er r or by t he MAC her e. I n addi t i on, pet i t i oner makes

no cl ai m, nor coul d he, t hat t he MAC' s deci si on "was based on an

unr easonabl e det er mi nat i on of t he f act s i n l i ght of t he evi dence

pr esent ed i n t he St at e cour t pr oceedi ng. " I d.

B. Thi r d- Par t y Cul pr i t Evi dence Theor y of Admi ssi bi l i t y

I n f oot not e 4 of i t s opi ni on, quot ed ear l i er , t he MAC

hel d t hat pet i t i oner ' s t heor y, advanced t o t he MAC, t hat Franci s' s

st at ement s wer e admi ssi bl e as t hi r d- par t y cul pr i t st at ement s wer e

not made at t r i al , wer e not apt , and t he excl usi on cr eat ed no r i sk

of a mi scar r i age of j ust i ce ( whi ch i s a st at e l aw except i on

pr ovi di ng r el i ef f r om pr ocedur al def aul t ) . Fr anci s, 936 N. E. 2d at

*2 n. 4. The MAC di d not say whet her i t consi der ed t he new " t hi r d-

par t y cul pr i t " t heor y t o be a separ at e doct r i nal r ul e of no

const i t ut i onal di mensi on or another at t empt ed bi t e at t he Chamber s

appl e, whi ch i t had j ust r ej ect ed. Nor di d i t need t o do so.

-20-


21/25

The di st r i ct cour t , as sai d, er r oneousl y const r ued

f oot not e 4' s pr ocedur al def aul t hol di ng t o ext end t o al l of

pet i t i oner ' s due pr ocess cl ai ms. Hodge, 2013 WL 3070660, at *3- 4.

The MAC, t hough, di d not use t he t er m "t hi r d par t y cul pr i t

evi dence" as shor t hand f or Hodge' s preser ved argument under

Chambers t hat t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause t r umped st at e evi dent i ary

r ul es. Rat her , i t consi der ed and r ej ect ed on t he mer i t s Hodge' s

due pr ocess ar gument s made at t r i al . To t he ext ent t hat

pet i t i oner ' s due pr ocess cl ai ms on f eder al habeas r evi ew ar e

pr edi cat ed upon a new t hi r d- par t y cul pr i t t heor y, we ar e bar r ed

f r om habeas r evi ew.

Foot not e 4 of t he MAC' s opi ni on i nvokes t he pr i nci pl e

t hat "[ i ] n al l cases i n whi ch a st at e pr i soner has def aul t ed hi s

f eder al cl ai ms i n st at e cour t pur suant t o an i ndependent and

adequat e st at e pr ocedur al r ul e, f eder al habeas r evi ew of t he cl ai ms

i s barr ed" absent a showi ng of "cause" and "act ual pr ej udi ce" or a

"demonst r at [ i on] t hat f ai l ur e t o consi der t he cl ai ms wi l l r esul t i n

a f undament al mi scar r i age of j ust i ce. " Col eman v. Thompson, 501

U. S. 722, 750 ( 1991) . Hodge makes no at t empt t o show "cause" and

"act ual pr ej udi ce" on appeal . Nor does Hodge speci f i cal l y ar gue

t hat "f ai l ur e t o consi der t he cl ai m[ ] wi l l r esul t i n a f undament al

mi scar r i age of j ust i ce. " I d.

The r emai ni ng quest i on, t hen, i s whether t he f eder al

cour t s ar e bar r ed f r om gi vi ng r el i ef based on t hi s t hi r d- par t y

-21-


22/25

cul pr i t argument by t he i ndependent and adequat e st at e gr ound

doct r i ne. See i d. at 730 ( "I n t he habeas cont ext , t he appl i cat i on

of t he i ndependent and adequat e st at e gr ound doct r i ne i s grounded

i n concer ns of comi t y and f eder al i sm. ") . Typi cal l y, "t he f act t hat

a cl ai mi s pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed i n st at e cour t i s an adequat e and

i ndependent s t at e gr ound pr ecl udi ng f eder al habeas rel i ef . " Wal ker

v. Russo, 506 F. 3d 19, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . At t he same t i me,

" [ t ] he quest i on whet her a st at e pr ocedur al r ul i ng i s adequat e i s

i t sel f a quest i on of f eder al l aw. " Bear d v. Ki ndl er , 558 U. S. 53,

60 ( 2009) .

We l ay out t he var i ous s t eps i n the adequacy of a

pr ocedur al bar anal ysi s. Fi r st , "[ t ] o be consi der ed an ' adequat e'

gr ound t o bar habeas r evi ew, t he st at e pr ocedur al r ul e t hat i s t he

basi s f or a pr ocedur al def aul t r ul i ng must be r egul ar l y and

consi st ent l y enf or ced by t he st at e cour t s. " Pi na v. Mal oney, 565

F. 3d 48, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . "Or di nar i l y, vi ol at i on of [ a] ' f i r ml y

est abl i shed and r egul ar l y f ol l owed' st at e r ul e[ ] . . . wi l l be

adequat e t o f or ecl ose r evi ew of a f eder al cl ai m. " Lee v. Kemna,

534 U. S. 362, 376 ( 2002) ( quot i ng J ames v. Kent ucky, 466 U. S. 341,

348 ( 1984) ) . Ther e i s no doubt t he pr ocedur al bar r ul i ng by t he

MAC her e meet s t hose r equi r ement s. I n f act , t he st ate pr ocedur al

bar at i ssue here bears none of t he hal l marks of i nadequacy t hat

woul d al l ow us t o r each t he mer i t s. I t was nei t her spor adi cal l y

appl i ed, see, e. g. , Bar r v. Ci t y of Col umbi a, 378 U. S. 146, 149

-22-


23/25

( 1964) ; NAACP v. Al abama ex r el . Fl owers, 377 U. S. 288, 301- 02

( 1964) ; NAACP v. Al abama ex r el . Pat t er son, 357 U. S. 449, 457- 58

( 1958) , nor i r r egul ar l y put i nt o pr act i ce, see For d v. Geor gi a, 498

U. S. 411, 423- 24 ( 1991) . "We have hel d, wi t h a r egul ar i t y

border i ng on t he monot onous, t hat t he Massachuset t s r equi r ement f or

cont emporaneous obj ect i ons i s an i ndependent and adequat e st at e

pr ocedur al gr ound, f i r ml y est abl i shed i n t he st at e' s j ur i spr udence

and r egul ar l y f ol l owed i n i t s cour t s. " J anosky v. St . Amand, 594

F. 3d 39, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ; see al so Gunt er v. Mal oney, 291 F. 3d

74, 79 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( f i ndi ng t hat Massachuset t s cour t s

"r egul ar l y enf or ce[ ] t he r ul e t hat a cl ai mnot r ai sed i s wai ved") . 7

The Supr eme Cour t has r epeat edl y counsel ed t hat r est r ai nt i s

necessar y " t o accor d appr opr i at e r espect t o t he sover ei gnt y of t he

St at es i n our f eder al syst em. " Har r i s v. Reed, 489 U. S. 255, 281

( 1989) ( quot i ng Ul st er Cnt y. Ct . v. Al l en, 442 U. S. 140, 154

( 1979) ) .

7 "Ther e ar e, however , except i onal cases i n whi ch exor bi t antappl i cat i on of a gener al l y sound r ul e r ender s t he st at e gr oundi nadequat e t o st op consi der at i on of a f eder al quest i on. " Kemna,534 U. S. at 376; see al so Hol mes, 547 U. S. at 324 ( "Th[ e] r i ght [ t opr esent a f ul l def ense] i s abr i dged by evi dence r ul es t hat

' i nf r i ng[ e] upon a wei ght y i nt er est of t he accused' and ar e' ar bi t r ar y or di spr opor t i onat e t o t he pur poses t hey ar e desi gned t oser ve. ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Schef f er , 523 U. S. 303, 308( 1998) ) ) ; Chamber s, 410 U. S. at 302 ( " I n t hese ci r cumst ances, wher econst i t ut i onal r i ght s di r ectl y af f ecti ng t he ascer t ai nment of gui l tar e i mpl i cat ed, t he hear say r ul e may not be appl i ed mechani st i cal l yt o def eat t he ends of j ust i ce. ") .

-23-


24/25

Under t hese ci r cumst ances, a f ederal habeas cour t must

l i mi t i t s r evi ew of a st at e cour t ' s pr ocedur al bar r ul i ng t o r evi ew

f or " exor bi t ant appl i cat i on" of st at e l aw. Kemna, 534 U. S. at 376.

The ci r cui t s agree t hat Kemna means such a procedural bar r ul i ng

must st and i n al l but except i onal ci r cumst ances. See, e. g. , Downs

v. Lape, 657 F. 3d 97, 107 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) ( "Even i f we agr eed wi t h

t he di ssent t hat i t s char act er i zat i on of counsel ' s st at ement was

' mor e l i kel y, ' t he exi st ence of a pl ausi bl e cont r ar y vi ew [ by t he

st at e cour t ] l eads us t o concl ude t hat t he appl i cat i on of t he r ul e

i s not exor bi t ant . ") ; Bar net t v. Roper , 541 F. 3d 804, 811 ( 8t h Ci r .

2008) ( "Because no . . . unf or eseeabl e ci r cumst ances j ust i f yi ng a

r el axat i on of t he [ pr ocedur al ] r equi r ement s wer e pr esent i n

[ pet i t i oner ] ' s case, we cannot say t hat t he [ st at e] Cour t ' s

appl i cat i on of [ t he st at e pr ocedur al r ul e] was ' exor bi t ant . ' ") .

On our de novo r evi ew of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on

under t he Kemna st andar d, we see no basi s t o upset t he MAC' s

pr ocedur al def aul t hol di ng. The MAC' s concl usi on t hat a t hi r d-

par t y cul pr i t t heor y of admi ssi bi l i t y was wai ved was cer t ai nl y

r easonabl e and i t s appl i cat i on of t he pr ocedur al bar r ul e was not

cl ose t o bei ng "exor bi t ant . " We have car ef ul l y r evi ewed t he r ecor d

our sel ves and see no ment i on by Hodge' s counsel of a t hi r d- part y

cul pr i t t heor y at t r i al . The t heor i es of admi ssi bi l i t y of f er ed at

t r i al di d not i ncl ude t hi s ar gument . And i n l i ght of t he MAC' s

r easonabl e rej ect i on of Hodge' s due pr ocess cl ai ms i n the body of

-24-


25/25

i t s opi ni on, t her e was no har m t o Hodge f r om hi s counsel ' s f ai l ur e

t o ar t i cul at e t hat t hi r d- par t y cul pr i t t heor y at t r i al .

We add a f i nal word. The Supr eme Cour t deci si on i n

J ohnson not ed t hat st at e appel l at e cour t s car r yi ng heavy casel oads

have adopt ed many mechani sms t o handl e t hei r case l oad

expedi t i ousl y, i ncl udi ng shor t opi ni ons. 133 S. Ct . at 1094- 96.

Feder al habeas cour t s are requi r ed t o keep i n mi nd t he bur dens

f aced by t hose cour t s, i ncl udi ng t he MAC. " [ F] eder al cour t s have

no aut hor i t y t o i mpose mandat ory opi ni on- wr i t i ng st andar ds on st at e

cour t s. " I d. at 1095.

I I I .

We rever se t he j udgment gr ant i ng t he pet i t i on f or habeas

cor pus. Habeas r el i ef i s bar r ed, and t he pet i t i on i s di smi ssed

wi t h pr ej udi ce.

-25-

hodge v. mendonsa, 1st cir. (2013)

Documents