Olu Rhodes v. Michael Dittmann

Summary

Olu Rhodes v. Michael Dittmann, 7th Cir. 2018. Habeas corpus; Confrontation Clause (Sixth Amendment); limitations on cross-examination of a key witness regarding motive; state court's routine application of Rule 403 balancing without special consideration of the defendant's constitutional right was contrary to and an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under *Olden v. Kentucky* and *Delaware v. Van Arsdall*. The Seventh Circuit held the constitutional error was not harmless under *Brecht v. Abrahamson* because the prosecution's motive theory was central and the excluded evidence would have rebutted it, and the state had waived or forfeited harmless error but the court exercised discretion to review it. The court reversed the district court's denial of the writ and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. The trial court's limitation on cross-examination violated the Confrontation Clause because the court applied ordinary Rule 403 balancing without giving special consideration to the defendant's constitutional right. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision upholding the limitation was both contrary to and an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.
2. The constitutional error was not harmless because it had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court's limitation on cross-examination of Nari Rhodes violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
2. Whether any such violation was harmless error.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded