Summary
This Sixth Circuit order denies a petition for rehearing en banc in a federal habeas corpus proceeding brought by a state prisoner convicted of criminal sexual misconduct. A dissenting opinion argues that the original panel improperly granted habeas relief by disregarding state court forfeiture rules and misapplying AEDPA deference regarding the trial court's exclusion of impeachment evidence. The dissent emphasizes that the state appellate court's rejection of the defendant's constitutional right-to-present-a-defense claim did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether rehearing en banc should be granted after the original panel granted federal habeas relief based on the exclusion of defense evidence.
- Whether the Michigan Court of Appeals unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) when it rejected Chandler's claim that exclusion of the Hamblins' and the proposed expert's testimony violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense.
- Whether the Sixth Circuit panel improperly relied on forfeited evidence and material outside the state-court record in granting habeas relief.
Holdings
- The petition for rehearing en banc was denied because the issues had been fully considered on the original submission and decision and fewer than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing.
- In the dissent's view, the panel should not have granted habeas relief because the Michigan Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent, and the excluded evidence was governed by ordinary state evidentiary and disclosure rules.
Key quotations
“Less than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc. Therefore, the petition is denied.” (at 2)
“the Constitution does not permit “arbitrary” rules that “exclude[] important defense evidence but that [do] not serve any legitimate interests.”” (at 15)
“If we don’t even know the constitutional test that applies, how could the state court have unreasonably applied that test?” (at 16)
Factual background
Chandler was convicted in Michigan of sexually abusing his eight-year-old foster daughter, A.H. At trial, A.H. testified, three other victims testified about sexual abuse by Chandler, and Chandler's wife provided corroborating testimony. Chandler sought to present testimony from A.H.'s former foster parents concerning alleged prior false accusations and expert testimony concerning memory and forensic-interview practices, but the trial court excluded the evidence under Michigan evidentiary and disclosure rules.
Procedural history
A Michigan jury convicted Chandler of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The Michigan Court of Appeals found state-law errors concerning continuances and the exclusion of defense witnesses but held that the errors were not prejudicial and did not establish a federal constitutional violation. The federal district court denied habeas relief. A Sixth Circuit panel reversed, the en banc court granted review and returned the case to the panel for an amended opinion, and the original panel issued an amended opinion. The court then denied Chandler's petition for rehearing en banc; Judges Thapar and Murphy dissented from that denial.