Linton v. Saba, 1st Cir. (2016)

7/26/2019 Linton v. Saba, 1st Cir. (2016)

1/28

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 2110

DAMI ON LI NTON,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

J AMES J . SABA,

Respondent , Appel l ee.

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

[ Hon. Ti mot hy S. Hi l l man, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Tor r uel l a, Lynch, and Kayat t a,

Ci r cui t J udges.

J ames M. Doyl e, wi t h whom Bass i l , Kl ovee & Budr eau, was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant .

Todd M. Bl ume, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Cr i mi nal Bureau,wi t h whom Thomas E. Boci an, Ass i st ant At t orney General , and Maur aHeal ey, At t or ney Gener al , wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Febr uary 1, 2016


2/28

-2 -

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. On Febr uary 23, 2005, Andr ea

Harvey' s parent s di scover ed her body i n Harvey' s Cambr i dge

apart ment . Her husband, Dami en Li nt on, was subsequent l y arr est ed

and convi ct ed of f i r st - degr ee mur der by a j ur y i n t he Massachuset t s

Super i or Cour t ( "Super i or Cour t " ) . The Massachuset t s Supr eme

J udi ci al Cour t ( "SJ C") af f i r med t he ver di ct as wel l as t he Super i or

Cour t ' s deni al of Li nt on' s mot i on f or a new t r i al on appeal .

Commonweal t h v. Li nt on, 924 N. E. 2d 722, 727 (Mass. 2010) .

Li nt on f i l ed a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of habeas cor pus i n

t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s

on t he gr ounds t hat ( 1) t he evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t

hi s convi ct i on and ( 2) t he admi ss i on of st atement s Harvey made t o

her f at her vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s under t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed Li nton' s pet i t i on f or habeas r el i ef .

Li nt on v. Saba, No. 11- 40132- TSH, 2014 WL 4804746, at *11 (D. Mass.

Sept . 25, 2014) . Af t er car ef ul r evi ew ut i l i zi ng t he st andar ds

under t he Ant i t er r or i sm and Ef f ect i ve Deat h Penal t y Act of 1996

( "AEDPA") , we af f i r m t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t .

I. Background

"We must ' accept t he st at e cour t f i ndi ngs of f act

unl ess . . . convi nce[ d] . . . by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence,

t hat t hey ar e i n er r or . ' " Lynch v. Fi cco, 438 F. 3d 35, 39 ( 1st

Ci r . 2006) ( quot i ng McCambr i dge v. Hal l , 303 F. 3d 24, 26 ( 1st Ci r .


3/28

-3 -

2002) ( en banc) ) . Thus, we r ecount t he f act s as f ound by t he SJ C,

and not e suppl ement ar y f act s f r om t he r ecor d as such. O' Laughl i n

v. O' Br i en, 568 F. 3d 287, 290 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

Dami on Li nt on l i ved wi t h hi s wi f e, Andr ea Har vey, at

t hei r apart ment i n Cambr i dge, Massachuset t s ( "Cambr i dge

apar t ment " ) . Li nt on met Lat r i ci a Car t er i n J anuar y 2005 and began

a sexual r el at i onshi p wi t h her on Febr uar y 14, 2005. He di d not

t el l Car t er he was mar r i ed but cl ai med he had an "ex- gi r l f r i end"

who had t hr eat ened t o buy "a bot t l e of pi l l s t o do somet hi ng t o

her sel f and make ever yone t hi nk t hat he di d i t t o her " i f he ended

t he r el at i onshi p.

On t he morni ng of Febr uary 23, Car t er was schedul ed t o

compl et e t est s f or wor k at a f aci l i t y i n Somer vi l l e, Massachuset t s,

near Li nt on' s apar t ment . Li nt on and Car t er made pl ans f or Car t er

t o vi si t hi m at t he Cambr i dge apar t ment bef or e her t est s. When

Car t er ar r i ved, however , she had t o r i ng t he door bel l t wi ce and

wai t i n t he f i r st - f l oor ent r yway. Car t er was about t o l eave when

Li nt on came downst ai r s, mi d- cel l phone conver sat i on. Af t er Li nt on

f i ni shed t he cal l , Car t er asked Li nt on why he had f i ni shed t he

conver sat i on i n t he ent r yway despi t e t he col d. Then she hear d a

l oud sound comi ng f r om upst ai r s. Li nt on t ol d Car t er , "Wel l you

know t hat cr azy, crazy gi r l I t ol d you about , she' s upst ai r s. "

Car t er r et ur ned t o her vehi cl e, whi ch was par ked on t he st r eet


4/28

-4 -

out si de t he apar t ment ; Li nt on f ol l owed and got i nt o t he passenger

seat . The pai r began ar gui ng i n t he t r uck - - Car t er demandi ng

expl anat i ons, Li nt on event ual l y admi t t i ng t o l i vi ng wi t h t he woman

i n t he apart ment - - and cont i nued unt i l a woman matchi ng Harvey' s

descr i pt i on came out si de and di scovered t hem. The woman peered

t hr ough the vehi cl e' s open wi ndow. 1 She excl ai med, "Oh, my gosh,

anot her woman, " and demanded Li nton r et urn her phone. He di d so,

t hen Cart er dr ove away wi t h Li nt on i n t he passenger seat . The

pai r ci r cl ed t he nei ghbor hood, once passi ng Har vey wal ki ng on t he

st r eet one bl ock f r om t he apar t ment , bef or e Car t er l et Li nt on out

and l ef t . Car t er ar r i ved at t he t est i ng f aci l i t y at some poi nt

bef ore 8: 45 a. m. She compl eted t wo t est s, t hen went t o work.

Car t er next hear d f r om Li nt on whi l e at wor k, ar ound

1: 30 p. m. Li nt on cl ai med he had f ought wi t h Harvey over Cart er

and "had to pack a bag and l eave" because Harvey was t hreat eni ng

t o har m her sel f and f r ame hi m. Li nt on asked t o st ay wi t h Car t er .

She r ef used. At 1: 30 p. m. , accor di ng t o vi deot ape and bank

r ecor ds, Li nt on wi t hdr ew $100 f r om a Cambr i dge Tr ust ATM t hat was

a t en- mi nut e wal k f r om t he Cambr i dge apar t ment . Li nt on

subsequent l y t r avel ed to New Yor k Ci t y, maki ng hi s way t o t he Por t

Aut hor i t y bus t er mi nal by 7: 51 p. m. , t he t i me at whi ch he

1 Thi s det ai l i s not ent i r el y cl ear , but i t appear s the f i ght i ngcoupl e l ef t t he t r uck wi ndow open r at her t han openi ng i t t o r et ur nt he phone. Li nt on, 924 N. E. 2d at 729.


5/28

-5 -

t el ephoned Har vey' s cel l phone f r om a publ i c phone "near a gat e

where a Gr eyhound bus was l eavi ng f or Nort h Carol i na. "

On Febr uar y 24, Li nt on ar r i ved i n Nor t h Car ol i na, 2 wher e

hi s br ot her l i ved, and appl i ed f or a j ob at t he Wal - Mar t wher e hi s

br other worked, expl ai ni ng t o the manager t hat he was movi ng t o

Ral ei gh af t er a f i ght wi t h hi s wi f e and seeki ng f ul l - t i me

empl oyment . That day, Li nt on al so spoke t o Har vey' s par ent s ( "Mr .

and Mr s. Harvey") by phone. He t ol d Mr s. Harvey t hat he was

cal l i ng f r om Nor t h Car ol i na, cl ai mi ng t hat he had t r avel ed t her e

t o r et r i eve i t ems hi s mot her had sent f r om J amai ca. Li nt on al so

t ol d Mr s. Har vey that he had been t r yi ng t o get i n t ouch wi t h her

daughter but had not been abl e t o do so and was wor r i ed because

she had t hr eat ened t o har m her sel f i f he l ef t her . He cl ai med

t hat Har vey had pr evi ousl y at t empt ed t o har m her sel f by i ngest i ng

"some st uf f " and that he had r evi ved her usi ng a "bush r emedy. "

Li nt on t ol d Mr s. Har vey t hat he saw Har vey t he ni ght of

Febr uary 22, cl ose t o mi dni ght , when he r etur ned t o t he apart ment ,

and agai n the next morni ng bef ore he l ef t t he Cambr i dge apar t ment

f or Nor t h Carol i na at 10: 00 a. m. He sai d Harvey "mur mur ed

2 Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat Li nt on ar r i ved i n Nor t hCar ol i na " [ i ] n t he ear l y mor ni ng of Febr uar y 24, " t he SJ C f oundonl y t hat Li nt on arr i ved at some poi nt on Febr uar y 24: The SJ Cr ecount ed Li nt on' s "shi f t i ng" t i mel i nes f or hi s t r i p t o Nor t hCar ol i na, t hen added t hat t he def endant had appl i ed f or a j ob i nNor t h Car ol i na t hat day.


6/28

-6 -

somethi ng" when Li nt on spoke t o her as he was l eavi ng. Short l y

t her eaf t er , however , Li nt on t ol d Mr . Har vey that he di d not see

Harvey on Febr uary 23 as she had "gone t o the gr ocer y st ore" bef ore

he woke at 8: 00 a. m. and had not r etur ned by t he t i me he l ef t f or

Nor t h Car ol i na at 10: 00 a. m. Mr s. Har vey poi nt ed out t he

cont r adi ct i on and asked Li nt on i f he had harmed Harvey; he deni ed

doi ng so.

As a resul t of Li nt on' s phone cal l , Mr . and Mr s. Har vey

went t o t he Cambr i dge apar t ment . The f r ont door was l ocked, but

t hey wer e abl e t o gai n access wi t h keys f r omt he r ent al agent . At

or around 2: 00 p. m. , Mr . and Mr s. Har vey di scover ed t hei r

daught er ' s body on a sheet on t he f l oor of t he apar t ment , her cel l

phone and a cup of water next t o her . Harvey, who was st i f f as a

r esul t of r i gor mor t i s, was l yi ng "somewhat on her si de, " i n

"somet hi ng l i ke a ' f et al ' posi t i on, " dr essed i n sweat s and wr apped

t o the neck i n bl anket s. The sheet and car pet wer e st ai ned wi t h

body f l ui ds. The t emper at ur e i n t he apar t ment was set t o ei ght y-

f i ve degr ees. Mr . Har vey cal l ed 911 f r om hi s cel l phone; a

Cambr i dge pol i ce of f i cer arr i ved mi nut es l at er . Pol i ce f ound no

evi dence of f orced ent r y t hr ough t he f r ont door and no means of

ent r y t hr ough t he back door , whi ch was bl ocked.

On Febr uar y 25, st at e pol i ce spoke wi t h Li nt on by phone.

He t ol d the t r ooper wi t h whom he spoke t hat on t he eveni ng of


7/28

-7 -

Febr uary 22 he had argued wi t h Harvey i n a phone conver sat i on about

money and some i t ems he had t aken f r omher . Li nton cl ai med Harvey

was asl eep when he came home t hat eveni ng and t hat he di d not see

her t he next day bef or e l eavi ng f or Fl or i da at 12: 00 p. m. t o vi si t

an aunt . He admi t t ed he had not made pl ans wi t h hi s aunt and was

unabl e to of f er any det ai l s about her or wher e i n Fl or i da she was

l i vi ng. Li nt on st at ed t hat Har vey had asked hi m t o l eave, t hat

he l ocked t he apart ment , and t hat he had hi s keys. He al so gave

t he t r ooper t he f i r st of sever al conf l i ct i ng st or i es about how he

got t o Nor t h Car ol i na. 3

On Febr uar y 26, Li nt on t el ephoned a f r i end of Har vey' s

and t ol d her t hat he and Har vey "got i nt o a f i ght , and t hi ngs went

bad, and I l ef t . " He al so cal l ed Car t er and made pl ans t o see her

l at er i n t he day wi t hout ment i oni ng hi s wher eabout s. Li nt on was

ar r est ed t hat eveni ng when he went t o work at Wal - Mar t . He wai ved

hi s Mi r anda r i ght s, and, dur i ng a t wo- hour i nt er vi ew wi t h pol i ce,

deni ed harmi ng Harvey and cl ai med a f or mer boyf r i end may have

ki l l ed her . He admi t t ed t hat hi s rel at i onshi p wi t h Har vey had

"pr obl ems, " t hat t hey ar gued over bi l l s, and t hat he had once had

a physi cal f i ght wi t h Har vey dur i ng whi ch he "grabbed [ Har vey] by

3 Li nt on cal l ed t he t r ooper t he next day t o gi ve a second ver si onof hi s t r avel , t hen r eaf f i r med hi s or i gi nal account when conf r ont edwi t h an i nconsi st ency.


8/28

-8 -

t he back of t he neck. " The next day, Li nt on cal l ed Car t er , t el l i ng

her t hat Harvey was dead and that he had been j ai l ed but was not

r esponsi bl e. Car t er di d not hear f r om Li nt on agai n unt i l mont hs

l at er , when he cal l ed t o "t [ el l ] her not t o go t o cour t because i f

she [ t est i f i ed] he woul d go t o j ai l f or t he r est of hi s l i f e. "

A. Proceedings in the Massachusetts Superior Court

The Commonweal t h of Massachuset t s proceeded agai nst

Li nt on i n Super i or Cour t under t wo f i r st - degr ee mur der t heor i es:

"del i ber at e pr emedi t at i on and ext r eme at r oci t y or cr uel t y. " The

Commonweal t h' s medi cal exami ner , Dr . Ri chard Evans ( "Dr . Evans" ) ,

t est i f i ed t hat Har vey di ed as a r esul t of manual st r angul at i on.

He not ed "mul t i pl e abr asi ons t o t he r i ght si de of t he vi ct i m' s

neck bel ow her j aw, consi st ent wi t h f i nger nai l mar ks, and a l ar ger

br ui se on t he l ef t si de of t he vi ct i m' s r i b cage t hat . . . coul d

have been caused by t he f or ce of a knee on t he vi ct i m' s chest . "

The abr asi ons wer e i nf l i ct ed whi l e Har vey was st i l l al i ve.

Dr . Evans al so t est i f i ed t hat t he f or ce appl i ed t o Har vey' s neck

"was so st r ong t hat i t had caused a separ at i on of t he hyoi d

bone . . . at t he base of t he vi ct i m' s t ongue, under t he j aw" and

t he r esul t i ng ci r cul at or y pr essur e was so i nt ense t hat i t caused

"ext ensi ve bl eedi ng i n [ her ] eyes. " Whi l e st r uggl i ng t o br eat he,

he t est i f i ed, Har vey bi t her t ongue so har d t hat she l ef t mar ks

and dr ew bl ood. Dr . Evans est i mated t hat Harvey woul d have been


9/28

-9 -

consci ous f or about ni net y seconds of "const ant or near - const ant

pr essur e. "

Dr . Evans not ed that deter mi ni ng t i me of deat h i s an

i nexact sci ence but est i mat ed that Har vey di ed bet ween "ei ght hour s

up t o twent y- f our hour s, maybe even sl i ght l y beyond t went y- f our

hour s" bef ore pol i ce photogr aphed her body on Febr uary 24, based

on r i gor mor t i s, decomposi t i on, and l i vi di t y. He al so t est i f i ed

t hat "whi l e i n nor mal ci r cumst ances i t woul d have t aken t wo to

t hr ee days t o r each t he st at e i n whi ch t he vi ct i m' s body was

di scover ed, . . . because of t he hi gh t emper at ur e i n t he

apar t ment , t hat t i me had been cut ' [ r ] oughl y i n hal f . ' " A f or ensi c

DNA anal yst t est i f i ed t hat DNA t est i ng of sampl es f r om Har vey' s

mout h, neck, and vagi na di d not r eveal mal e DNA. Scr api ngs f r om

under Har vey' s f i nger nai l s yi el ded one par t i al mal e pr of i l e;

Li nt on coul d not be excl uded as t he pot ent i al sour ce.

At t r i al , Mr . Har vey t est i f i ed about a Sept ember 2004

i nci dent when hi s daught er cal l ed hi m, "ver y upset , pr et t y much

hyst er i cal , " t o "come over and get her . " He st at ed t hat when he

arr i ved at t he Cambr i dge apart ment t en mi nut es l ater , he f ound her

out si de at a payphone, "st i l l hyst er i cal " and "st i l l cryi ng. " At

her r equest , Mr . Har vey t est i f i ed, he went up t o t he Cambr i dge

apar t ment and asked Li nt on f or her cel l phone; Li nt on deni ed havi ng

t he phone, so Mr . Har vey r et ur ned t o hi s daught er and t hey l ef t .


10/28

- 10-

Mr . Har vey st at ed t hat Har vey was "st i l l hyster i cal " i n t he car on

t he way t o hi s home and t hat she t ol d hi m she had f ought wi t h

Li nt on and he had t aken her cel l phone, cut t he l andl i ne

connect i on, and choked her i nt o unconsci ousness when she t r i ed t o

l eave t he apar t ment . No more t han t went y mi nut es passed bet ween

Har vey' s cal l t o her f at her , whi ch i mmedi at el y f ol l owed t he

assaul t , and her st at ement . 4

The j ury convi ct ed Li nton on one count of f i r st - degree

mur der on t he theor y of ext r eme at r oci t y or cr uel t y under Mass.

Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, 1. Li nt on, 924 N. E. 2d at 727. Li nt on

moved f or a new t r i al ; hi s mot i on was deni ed. I d. at 727- 28.

B. Proceedings in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Li nt on appeal ed t o t he SJ C, chal l engi ng bot h t he

convi ct i on and t he or der of t he t r i al j udge denyi ng a new t r i al .

Li nt on, 924 N. E. 2d at 727. He argued " t hat t he evi dence pr esent ed

at t r i al was i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he j ur y' s ver di ct and t hat

[ t he SJ C] shoul d r ever se t he [ Super i or Cour t ' s] deni al of hi s

mot i on f or a r equi r ed f i ndi ng of not gui l t y. " I d. I n t he

4 Al t hough t he SJ C concl uded t hat " appr oxi matel y t went y mi nut es

. . . passed, " t hi s poi nt i s not per f ectl y cl ear f r omMr . Har vey' st r i al t est i mony. Mr . Har vey t est i f i ed t hat i t t ook t en mi nut est o get t o hi s daught er ' s apar t ment af t er she cal l ed. When askedhow much t i me had passed "f r om when you went t o get her t o whenshe st ar t ed t o make t hi s st at ement , " Mr . Har vey repl i ed, "Wi t hi nt he t i me i t t ook me t o get f r om pi cki ng her up and get t i ng herhome, so i t woul d be wi t hi n t en mi nut es. "


11/28

- 11-

al t er nat i ve, Li nt on cl ai med a new t r i al was mer i t ed because t he

Super i or Cour t er r ed by admi t t i ng t he vi ct i m' s st at ement s about a

pr evi ous assaul t i n vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght t o conf r ont adver se

wi t nesses. 5 I d.

The SJ C af f i r med Li nton' s convi ct i on and t he or der

denyi ng hi s mot i on f or a new t r i al . 6 I d. at 744. The SJ C appl i ed

t he st at e l aw st andar d f or a deni al of a r equi r ed f i ndi ng wi t h

r espect t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence: " [ W] het her t he evi dence

of f ered by t he Commonweal t h, t ogether wi t h r easonabl e i nf erences

t her ef r om, when vi ewed i n i t s l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

Commonweal t h, was suf f i ci ent t o persuade a r at i onal j ur y beyond a

r easonabl e doubt of t he exi st ence of ever y el ement of t he cr i me

charged. " I d. at 733 ( quot i ng Commonweal t h v. Lao, 824 N. E. 2d

821, 829 ( Mass. 2005) ) . The SJ C noted t hat t he Massachuset t s

st andar d i s consi st ent wi t h t hat of J ackson v. Vi r gi ni a, 443 U. S.

307, 318- 19 ( 1979) . I d. ( ci t i ng Commonweal t h v. Lat i mor e, 393

N. E. 2d 370, 374- 75 ( Mass. 1979) ) . The cour t concl uded t hat t he

j ury r easonabl y coul d have f ound Li nton ki l l ed Har vey based on t he

l ack of f or ced ent r y and Li nt on' s admi ssi on he l ocked t he apar t ment

5 Li nt on al so r ai sed t wo i ssues not bef or e t hi s Cour t t hat ar enot r el evant her e. Li nt on, 924 N. E. 2d at 727.

6 The SJ C addr essed and di smi ssed t wo evi dent i ary i ssues notr ai sed surr oundi ng t he vi deot ape of Li nt on usi ng an ATM and t headmi ssi on of DNA evi dence. I d. at 742- 44.


12/28

- 12-

and kept hi s keys; evi dence of hi s act i ons and movement s on

Febr uar y 23 t hat "est abl i shed a chr onol ogy . . . per mi t t [ i ng] t he

j ury t o concl ude t hat [ Li nton] had . . . oppor t uni t y" ; 7 mot i ve,

gi ven hi s mar i t al di f f i cul t i es and ext r amar i t al af f ai r ; t he gl ass

of water by Harvey' s body, whi ch coul d be meant t o "l eave t he

i mpr essi on t hat t he vi ct i mhad di ed by sui ci de" ; and t he est i mat ed

t i me of deat h. I d. at 733- 34. A r easonabl e j ur y, t he SJ C added,

coul d al so i nf er t hat Li nt on di d not know wher e he woul d sl eep t he

ni ght of Febr uar y 23, as he asked Car t er i f he coul d st ay wi t h

her . I d.

Addr essi ng Li nt on' s r el at ed cl ai m t hat t he evi dence was

not suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a convi ct i on of f i r st - degr ee mur der based

on ext r eme at r oci t y or cr uel t y, t he SJ C not ed t hat a j ur y must

f i nd one or more f act or s under Commonweal t h v. Cunneen, 449 N. E. 2d

658 ( Mass. 1989) , t o sust ai n such a convi ct i on. Li nt on, 924 N. E. 2d

at 734. As t he SJ C st at ed, t he Cunneen f act or s ar e:

( 1) whet her t he def endant was i ndi f f er ent t o or t ookpl easur e i n t he vi ct i m' s suf f er i ng; ( 2) t heconsci ousness and degr ee of suf f er i ng of t he vi ct i m;( 3) t he ext ent of t he vi cti m' s physi cal i nj ur i es;

7 I n addi t i on t o di scussi ng Li nt on' s ATM wi t hdr awal and cal l t oCar t er , t he cour t ci t ed t o evi dence t hat t he l ast out goi ng cal l

f r om Harvey' s phone was at 8: 23 a. m. and t here was an unansweredcal l t o her phone at 10: 15 a. m. on Febr uar y 23; t hat a l andl i nephone cal l was pl aced f r om t he Cambr i dge apar t ment t o Li nt on' smother ' s phone i n J amai ca at 12: 32 p. m. t hat day, whi ch suggest edhe was at t he apart ment ; and that a phone cal l was pl aced by Li nt onf r om t he New Yor k Por t Aut hor i t y. I d. at 733- 34.


13/28

- 13-

( 4) t he number of bl ows i nf l i ct ed on t he vi ct i m; ( 5) t hemanner and f orce wi t h whi ch the bl ows were del i ver ed;( 6) t he natur e of t he weapon, i nst r ument , or method usedi n t he ki l l i ng; and ( 7) t he di spr opor t i on bet ween t hemeans needed t o cause deat h and t hose empl oyed.

I d. at 735 n. 10 ( ci t i ng Cunneen, 449 N. E. 2d at 665) . The SJ C

concl uded that , based on Dr . Evans' s t est i mony, a j ur y "r easonabl y

coul d have f ound" mul t i pl e Cunneen f act or s, i ncl udi ng:

"i ndi f f er ence t o t he vi ct i m' s suf f er i ng, t he vi ct i m' s hi gh degr ee

of consci ous suf f er i ng, and t he over whel mi ng f or ce appl i ed dur i ng

t he st r angul at i on. " Li nt on, 924 N. E. 2d at 735.

I n r evi ewi ng Li nt on' s Conf r ont at i on Cl ause cl ai m, t he

SJ C r el i ed on a t wo- st ep st at e st andar d i t not ed t o be consi st ent

wi t h Cr awf or d v. Washi ngt on, 541 U. S. 36 ( 2004) , and Davi s v.

Washi ngt on, 547 U. S. 813 ( 2006) , per Commonweal t h v. Si mon, 923

N. E. 2d 59 ( Mass. 2010) : " [ 1] det er mi n[ i ng] whet her t he st at ement

i s admi ssi bl e under our common l aw of evi dence . . . . [ 2] t hen

det er mi n[ i ng] whet her admi ssi on of t he st at ement i s pr ohi bi t ed by

t he conf r ont at i on cl ause [ si c] of t he Si xt h Amendment . " Li nt on,

924 N. E. 2d at 736 ( quot i ng Commonweal t h v. Nesbi t t , 892 N. E. 2d

299, 306 ( Mass. 2008) ) . The SJ C f ound t hat Harvey' s st atement

about her at t ack t o her f at her was admi ssi bl e under t he exci t ed

ut t er ance hear say except i on gi ven t he nat ur e of t he physi cal

at t ack, i t s ef f ect on her , and t he r el at i vel y shor t amount of t i me

between t he assaul t and her st atement t o Mr . Harvey. I d. at 736-


14/28

- 14-

37. Fur t her , t he SJ C f ound t hat t he st at ement ' s admi ssi on di d not

vi ol at e t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause, as a "r easonabl e per son . . .

woul d not have ant i ci pat ed t hat her st at ement s t o her f at her woul d

be used agai nst [ Li nt on] when she di d not r epor t t he cr i me to the

pol i ce or t he cour t " and nothi ng i ndi cated t he st atement was made

"f or any ot her pur pose t han t o expl ai n t o her f at her what had

happened. " I d. at 737.

C. Proceedings in the District Court of Massachusetts

Li nt on t i mel y f i l ed a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of habeas

cor pus. Li nt on, 2014 WL 4804746, at *3. He ar gued, i nt er al i a,

t hat ( 1) " [ t ] he admi ssi on at t r i al of st at ement s made by t he

deceased vi ct i m t o her f at her about a pr i or assaul t by [ Li nt on]

vi ol at ed [ Li nt on' s] const i t ut i onal r i ght t o conf r ont wi t nesses

agai nst hi m" and ( 2) " [ t ] he convi ct i on was not suppor t ed by

suf f i ci ent evi dence and t her ef or e vi ol at ed [ Li nt on' s]

const i t ut i onal r i ght t o due pr ocess. "8 I d. at *1. The di s tr i ct

cour t deni ed habeas r el i ef , i d. at *11, hol di ng t hat ( 1) Har vey' s

st at ement t o her f at her about a pr i or assaul t by Li nt on was not

t est i moni al and " t he SJ C' s appl i cat i on of t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

Conf r ont at i on Cl ause pr ecedent s was not unr easonabl e, " i d. at *6,

8 Li nt on al so made an i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel ar gument ,whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed and t o whi ch i t decl i ned t o gr anta cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y. Li nt on, 2014 WL 4804746, at *3.


15/28

- 15-

and ( 2) " t he SJ C di d not unr easonabl y appl y t he J ackson st andar d

when i t di smi ssed [ Li nt on] ' s suf f i ci ency of evi dence cl ai m . . .

[ n] or di d t he SJ C unr easonabl y appl y J ackson i n f i ndi ng suf f i ci ent

evi dence to suppor t a convi ct i on based on ext r eme at r oci t y or

cruel t y. " I d. at *8. Li nt on f i l ed a Not i ce of Appeal and mot i oned

f or a cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed a

cer t i f i cat e of appeal abi l i t y wi t h r espect t o t hese t wo cl ai ms onl y.

II. The Habeas Framework

A. Standard of Review

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of habeas r el i ef

de novo. Snchez v. Roden, 753 F. 3d 279, 293 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

" [ D] e novo r evi ew encompasses t he di st r i ct cour t ' s own

' det er mi nat i on of t he appr opr i at e st andar d of r evi ew of t he stat e

cour t proceedi ng. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Zul uaga v. Spencer , 585 F. 3d 27,

29 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) . The di st r i ct cour t i s not ent i t l ed t o

def er ence. Heal y v. Spencer , 453 F. 3d 21, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

Rather , i n t hese cases, we must "determi ne whet her t he habeas

pet i t i on shoul d have been gr ant ed i n t he f i r st i nst ance. "

Snchez, 753 F. 3d at 293.

B. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act Standards

Under AEDPA, habeas r el i ef

shal l not be gr ant ed wi t h r espect t o any cl ai m t hat wasadj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s i n St at e cour t pr oceedi ngsunl ess t he adj udi cat i on of t he cl ai m - -


16/28

- 16-

( 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 Feder al l aw, as det er mi nedby the Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St ates; or( 2) r esul t ed i n a deci si on t hat was based on anunr easonabl e det er mi nat i on of t he f act s i n l i ghtof t he evi dence pr esent ed i n t he St at e cour tpr oceedi ng.

28 U. S. C. 2254( d) ; see Hodge v. Mendonsa, 739 F. 3d 34, 41 (1st

Ci r . 2013) ; Zul uaga, 585 F. 3d at 29.

We have hel d t hat an adj udi cat i on i s " ' on t he mer i t s, '

gi vi ng r i se t o def er ence under 2254( d) of AEDPA, ' i f t her e i s a

deci si on f i nal l y r esol vi ng t he par t i es' cl ai ms, wi t h r es j udi cat a

ef f ect , t hat i s based on t he subst ance of t he cl ai m advanced,

r at her t han on a pr ocedur al , or ot her , gr ound. ' " Yeboah- Sef ah v.

Fi cco, 556 F. 3d 53, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( quot i ng Tet i v. Bender ,

507 F. 3d 50, 5657 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) . "[ A] st at e- cour t

adj udi cat i on of an i ssue f r amed i n t er ms of st at e l aw i s

nonet hel ess ent i t l ed t o def er ence under sect i on 2254( d) ( 1) as l ong

as t he st at e and f eder al i ssues ar e f or al l pr act i cal pur poses

synonymous and t he st at e st andar d i s at l east as pr ot ect i ve of t he

def endant ' s r i ght s as i t s f eder al count er par t . " Foxwor t h v. St .

Amand, 570 F. 3d 414, 426 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

C. Clearly Established Federal Law

To det er mi ne whet her a deci si on was cont r ar y t o Supreme

Cour t pr ecedent or const i t ut ed an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of

f eder al l aw under such pr ecedent per 2254( d) , t hi s Cour t " l ook[ s]


17/28

- 17-

t o t he Supr eme Cour t ' s hol di ngs, as opposed t o di ct a, at t he t i me

t he st at e cour t r ender ed i t s deci si on. " Hensl ey v. Roden, 755

F. 3d 724, 730- 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( ci t i ng Gonzl ezFuent es v.

Mol i na, 607 F. 3d 864, 876 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) ; see Thal er v. Haynes,

559 U. S. 43, 47 ( 2010) . Federal habeas cour t s may not l ook t o

ci r cui t pr ecedent "r ef i n[ i ng] or shar pen[ i ng] a gener al pr i nci pl e

of Supr eme Cour t j ur i spr udence i nt o a speci f i c r ul e t hat t h[ e]

Cour t has not announced. " Mar shal l v. Rodger s, 133 S. Ct . 1446,

1450 ( 2013) ; see al so Lpez v. Smi t h, 135 S. Ct . 1, 4 ( 2014) . Nor

may a f eder al habeas cour t "canvass ci r cui t deci si ons t o det er mi ne

whet her a par t i cul ar r ul e of l aw i s so wi del y accept ed among t he

Feder al Ci r cui t s t hat i t woul d, i f pr esent ed t o [ t he Supr eme]

Cour t , be accept ed as cor r ect . " Mar shal l , 133 S. Ct . at 1451.

D. Contrary to or an Unreasonable Application of Clearly

Established Federal Law

A st at e cour t deci si on i s "cont r ar y t o" cl ear l y

est abl i shed f eder al l aw "i f t he st at e cour t ' "appl i es a r ul e t hat

cont r adi ct s t he gover ni ng l aw set f or t h" by the Supr eme Cour t or

"conf r ont s a set of f act s t hat ar e mat er i al l y i ndi st i ngui shabl e

f r oma deci si on of [ t he Supr eme Cour t ] and never t hel ess ar r i ves at

a r esul t di f f er ent f r om [ i t s] pr ecedent . "' " Hensl ey, 755 F. 3d at

731 ( quot i ng Gomes v. Br ady, 564 F. 3d 532, 537 ( 1st Ci r . 2009)

( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Wi l l i ams v. Tayl or , 529 U. S.

362, 405- 06 ( 2000) ) ) . And "a st at e cour t adj udi cat i on const i t ut es


18/28

- 18-

an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on [ of cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw]

' i f t he st at e cour t i dent i f i es t he cor r ect gover ni ng l egal

pr i nci pl e f r om t he Supr eme Cour t ' s t hen- cur r ent deci si ons but

unr easonabl y appl i es t hat pr i nci pl e t o t he f act s of t he pr i soner ' s

case. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Abr ant e v. St . Amand, 595 F. 3d 11, 15 ( 1st

Ci r . 2010) ) .

"For pur poses of 2254( d) ( 1) , ' an unr easonabl e

appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw i s di f f er ent f r om an i ncor r ect

appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw. ' " Har r i ngt on v. Ri cht er , 562 U. S. 86,

101 ( 2011) ( quot i ng Wi l l i ams, 529 U. S. at 410) . "A st at e cour t ' s

det er mi nat i on t hat a cl ai m l acks mer i t pr ecl udes f eder al habeas

r el i ef so l ong as ' f ai r mi nded j ur i st s coul d di sagr ee' on t he

cor r ectness of [ t he st at e cour t ' s] deci si on. " I d. ( quot i ng

Yarbor ough v. Al var ado, 541 U. S. 652, 664 ( 2004) ) . "The mor e

general t he rul e, t he more l eeway cour t s have i n r eachi ng out comes

i n case- by- case det er mi nat i ons. " Al var ado, 541 U. S. at 664.

Thus, t o obt ai n f eder al habeas r el i ef , a pet i t i oner must show " t he

st at e cour t ' s r ul i ng on t he cl ai m . . . was so l acki ng i n

j ust i f i cat i on t hat t her e was an er r or wel l under st ood and

compr ehended i n exi st i ng l aw beyond any possi bi l i t y f or f ai r mi nded

di sagr eement . " Ri cht er , 562 U. S. at 103.


19/28

- 19-

III. The Claims

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

1. Applicable Law

The par t i es acknowl edge t hat J ackson i s t he sour ce of

t he cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw appl i cabl e t o t he suf f i ci ency

cl ai m i n t he i nst ant case. Under J ackson, "t he r el evant quest i on

i s whet her , af t er vi ewi ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e

t o t he pr osecut i on, any r at i onal t r i er of f act coul d have f ound

t he essent i al el ement s of t he cr i me beyond a reasonabl e doubt . "

443 U. S. at 319. " [ T] he st andar d must be appl i ed wi t h expl i ci t

r ef er ence t o t he subst ant i ve el ement s of t he cr i mi nal of f ense as

def i ned by st at e l aw. " I d. at 324 n. 16. A cr i mi nal convi ct i on

may be suppor t ed by ci r cumst ant i al evi dence al one. I d. at 324-

25; see al so Magr aw v. Roden, 743 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( "Thi s

pr i nci pl e [ t hat di r ect evi dence i s not r equi r ed t o uphol d a

convi ct i on] i s even mor e f i r ml y est abl i shed i n connect i on wi t h t he

def er ent i al appr oach t o st at e- cour t deci si onmaki ng t hat f eder al

habeas r evi ew demands. " ) . " [ A] f eder al habeas cor pus cour t f aced

wi t h a r ecor d . . . t hat suppor t s conf l i ct i ng i nf er ences must

pr esume . . . t hat t he t r i er of f act r esol ved any such conf l i ct s

i n f avor of t he pr osecut i on, and must def er t o t hat r esol ut i on. "

J ackson, 443 U. S. at 326.


20/28

- 20-

A f eder al cour t r evi ewi ng a habeas pet i t i on r ai si ng a

J ackson cl ai m must appl y a " t wi ce- def er ent i al st andar d. " Parker

v. Mat t hews, 132 S. Ct . 2148, 2152 ( 2012) . " [ A] s t at e- cour t

deci si on r ej ect i ng a suf f i ci ency chal l enge may not be over t ur ned

on f eder al habeas unl ess t he ' deci si on was " obj ect i vel y

unr easonabl e. " ' " I d. ( quot i ng Cavazos v. Smi t h, 132 S. Ct . 2, 4

( 2011) ) . I n t hi s cont ext , " ' [ b] eyond a r easonabl e doubt ' does not

r equi r e t he excl usi on of ever y ot her hypot hesi s; i t i s enough t hat

al l r easonabl e doubt s ar e excl uded. " O' Laughl i n, 568 F. 3d at 301

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng St ewar t v. Coal t er , 48 F. 3d 610,

616 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ) . Wher e any r easonabl e j ur i st woul d concl ude

t hat "evi dence vi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct

gi ves equal or near l y equal ci r cumst ant i al suppor t t o a t heor y of

gui l t and a t heor y of i nnocence, " however , t hi s Cour t must r ever se

because equi poi se i s t ant amount t o r easonabl e doubt . I d. ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Fl or es- Ri ver a, 56 F. 3d 319, 323 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ) ;

cf . Magr aw, 743 F. 3d at 5 ( emphasi zi ng t hat " t hi s equal - evi dence

r ul e t akes hol d onl y af t er we have dr awn al l r easonabl e i nf er ences

i n f avor of t he ver di ct" ) .

2. Analysis

As t he SJ C adj udi cat ed t he case on t he mer i t s, t he

di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y appl i ed t he hi ghl y def er ent i al AEDPA

st andar d. Zul uaga, 585 F. 3d at 29. That t he SJ C appl i ed Lat i mor e


21/28

- 21-

r at her t han J ackson does not di mi ni sh i t s cl ai mt o def er ence under

AEDPA, Foxwor t h, 570 F. 3d at 426, as " t he Lat i mor e t est . . . i s

f unct i onal l y i dent i cal t o t he J ackson . . . st andar d. " Logan v.

Gel b, 790 F. 3d 65, 71 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) .

Pr oceedi ng accor di ngl y, we f i nd t hat Li nt on di d not

pr ove a "cont r ar y t o" or "unr easonabl e appl i cat i on" of cl ear l y

est abl i shed f eder al l aw under J ackson and t hus i s not ent i t l ed t o

habeas rel i ef under AEDPA. 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) .

The Commonweal t h ar gues t hat Li nton' s i nsuf f i ci ency of

evi dence i dent i t y ar gument i s wai ved because he di d not r ai se i t

i n hi s habeas pet i t i on. We not e t hat whi l e Li nt on di d not r ai se

t hi s ar gument i n t he pet i t i on i t sel f , he di d r ai se i t i n t he

memorandum of l aw support i ng hi s pet i t i on. However , we need not

deci de i f r ai si ng an ar gument i n t he memor andum of l aw i s

suf f i ci ent t o pr event wai ver . Even assumi ng t he i nsuf f i ci ency of

i dent i t y ar gument has not been wai ved, i t f ai l s on t he mer i t s.

The SJ C asked t he Massachuset t s ver si on of " t he r el evant

quest i on" under J ackson, and eval uat ed al l avai l abl e evi dence t o

f i nd suppor t f or i dent i t y, oppor t uni t y, mot i ve, and consci ousness

of gui l t . The abundance of evi dence def eat s Li nt on' s ef f or t s t o

compar e t hi s case t o Commonweal t h v. Sal emme, 481 N. E. 2d 471 ( Mass .

1985) , i n whi ch t he SJ C st ated t hat "a def endant may not be

convi ct ed sol el y on t he basi s of consci ousness of gui l t , " i d. at


22/28

- 22-

476, and O' Laughl i n, wher e t hi s Cour t r ever sed t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deni al of habeas r el i ef because " t her e was no physi cal or f or ensi c

evi dence l i nki ng [ t he pet i t i oner ] t o t he cr i me scene; [ t he

pur por t ed] mot i ve was i nconsi st ent wi t h t he evi dence . . . ; and

[ t he pet i t i oner ] pr esent ed compel l i ng t hi r d- par t y evi dence t hat [ a

t hi r d par t y] was t he act ual assai l ant . " 568 F. 3d at 308. Her e,

by cont r ast , ampl e evi dence t i es Li nt on t o t he cr i me, shows mot i ve,

and i ndi cat es consci ousness of gui l t . For exampl e, t he apar t ment

i n whi ch Harvey was f ound was l ocked - - wi t h no si gn of f orced

ent r y - - and Li nt on had keys t o t he apar t ment . Li nt on was wi t h

Harvey t he morni ng of t he day t he mur der most l i kel y occurr ed,

Febr uar y 23, and a j ur y coul d have i nf er r ed t hat he was i n t he

apar t ment even l at er , af t er Har vey ceased answer i ng cal l s t o or

maki ng cal l s f r om her cel l phone and wi t hi n the extended wi ndow

f or t i me of deat h Dr . Evans est i mat ed, based on a cal l made t o hi s

mother at 12: 32 p. m. and a vi deo showi ng hi m at an ATM a ten-

mi nut e wal k away f r om t he apart ment at 1: 30 p. m. t hat day. Days

af t er t he mur der , Li nt on t ol d one of Har vey' s f r i ends t hat he and

Har vey "got i nt o a f i ght , and t hi ngs went bad, and I l ef t . " The

mur der al so appear ed t o have been st aged t o suggest Harvey ki l l ed

her sel f by i ngest i ng somet hi ng; Li nt on had t ol d Car t er as wel l as

Harvey' s par ent s t hat he was concerned Harvey woul d hur t hersel f .

The al t er nat i ve expl anat i on - - t hat an unknown person, or t he ex-


23/28

- 23-

boyf r i end t o whom he al l uded dur i ng quest i oni ng on Febr uar y 26,

ent er ed t he apar t ment af t er Li nt on l ef t , ki l l ed Har vey, and t hen

l ocked t he apar t ment was ent i r el y i mpr obabl e.

What i s mor e, Li nt on si mpl y di d not pr esent "compel l i ng

t hi r d- par t y evi dence. " Thi s case mor e cl osel y r esembl es Magr aw,

i n whi ch t hi s Cour t decl i ned t o gr ant habeas because, "af t er . . .

dr aw[ i ng] al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of t he ver di ct , " " t he

evi dence [ coul d not ] f ai r l y be sai d t o be i n equi poi se. " 743 F. 3d

at 5. The ci r cumst ant i al evi dence Li nt on must er s i n suppor t of

hi s i nnocence, a t i mel i ne he cl ai ms suppor t s t he concl usi on t hat

he was out of st at e when Har vey di ed, i s subj ect t o conf l i ct i ng

i nf er ences t hat must be r esol ved i n f avor of t he j ur y ver di ct .

J ackson, 443 U. S. at 326.

The SJ C al so r easonabl y appl i ed J ackson i n det er mi ni ng

t hat t he evi dence was suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he "ext r eme at r oci t y

or cr uel t y" el ement necessar y t o convi ct Li nt on of f i r st - degr ee

mur der , Li nt on, 924 N. E. 2d at 734- 35, i n Massachuset t s. Mass.

Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, 1. The j ur y hear d Dr . Evans' s t est i mony

as t o t he ki l l i ng f or ce i nf l i ct ed on Har vey, t he r esul t i ng

devast at i ng i nj ur i es, and her l i kel y per i od of consci ousness as

t hat over whel mi ng f or ce was appl i ed and t hose i nj ur i es i nf l i ct ed

on her . Supr a at 9- 10. Cont r ar y t o what Li nt on cl ai ms, t hi s

evi dence coul d r easonabl y be seen as suf f i ci ent t o di st i ngui sh


24/28

- 24-

t hi s mur der as exhi bi t i ng ext r eme at r oci t y or cr uel t y under

Cunneen. 449 N. E. 2d at 665.

For t hese reasons, based on t hese f act s, and i n l i ght of

t he doubl e def erence t o whi ch the SJ C i n ent i t l ed under AEDPA and

J ackson, Parker , 132 S. Ct . at 2152; Cavazos, 132 S. Ct . at 4, we

af f i r m t he di str i ct cour t ' s rul i ng as to t he suf f i c i ency of t he

evi dence.

B. Confrontation of Witnesses

1. Applicable Law

The par t i es cor r ect l y concur t hat Cr awf or d set s f or t h

t he r el evant cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw r egar di ng Li nt on' s

Conf r ont at i on Cl ause cl ai m. The Conf r ont at i on Cl ause pr ovi des

t hat "[ i ] n al l cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons, t he accused shal l enj oy t he

r i ght . . . t o be conf r ont ed wi t h t he wi t nesses agai nst hi m, " U. S.

Const . amend. VI , and, per Cr awf or d, bar s t he admi ssi on of

"t est i moni al st at ement s of wi t nesses absent f r omt r i al " unl ess t he

wi t ness i s unavai l abl e t o t est i f y and t he def endant had a pr i or

oppor t uni t y f or cr oss- exami nat i on. 541 U. S. at 59. The Cr awf or d

Cour t l i st ed "[ v] ar i ous f or mul at i ons of t hi s cor e cl ass of

' t est i moni al ' st at ement s, " i ncl udi ng ( 1) "ex par t e i n- cour t

t est i mony or i t s f unct i onal equi val ent , " 541 U. S. at 51,

( 2) "ext r aj udi ci al st at ement s . . . cont ai ned i n f or mal i zed

t est i moni al mat er i al s, such as af f i davi t s, deposi t i ons, pr i or


25/28

- 25-

t est i mony, or conf essi ons, " i d. at 51- 52 ( quot i ng Whi t e v.

I l l i noi s, 502 U. S. 346, 365 ( 1992) ( Thomas, J . , concur r i ng i n par t

and concur r i ng i n j udgment ) ) , and, r el evant her e, ( 3) "st at ement s

t hat were made under ci r cumst ances whi ch woul d l ead an obj ect i ve

wi t ness r easonabl y t o bel i eve t hat t he st atement woul d be avai l abl e

f or use at a l at er t r i al . " I d. at 52. The Conf r ont at i on Cl ause

"appl i es onl y t o t est i moni al hear say. " Davi s, 547 U. S. at 823. 9

2. Analysis

As wi t h Li nt on' s J ackson cl ai m, because the SJ C

adj udi cat ed t he case on t he mer i t s, we f i nd t he di st r i ct cour t

cor r ect l y appl i ed t he hi ghl y def er ent i al AEDPA st andar d. Zul uaga,

585 F. 3d at 29. And, as above, t hat t he SJ C appl i ed t hi s pr ecedent

t hr ough t he st at e st andar d does not di mi ni sh i t s cl ai mt o def er ence

under AEDPA, as t he st andard i t appl i ed here mi r r ors Cr awf ord and

Davi s. Foxwor t h, 570 F. 3d at 426.

We f i nd t hat Li nt on f ai l ed t o pr ove a "cont r ar y to" or

unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw under

9 A number of Supr eme Cour t r ul i ngs af t er t he st at e cour t r ul i ngcl ar i f i ed " t est i moni al " but cannot be consi der ed her e per Hensl ey.

755 F. 3d at 730- 31. See Ohi o v. Cl ark, 135 S. Ct . 2173, 2182( 2015) ( "St atement s made t o someone who i s not pr i nci pal l y char gedwi t h uncover i ng and pr osecut i ng cr i mi nal behavi or ar esi gni f i cant l y l ess l i kel y t o be t est i moni al t han st at ement s gi vent o l aw enf or cement of f i cer s. ") ; Wi l l i ams v. I l l i noi s, 132 S. Ct .2221 ( 2012) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ; Mi chi gan v. Br yant , 562 U. S. 344( 2011) ; Bul l comi ng v. New Mexi co, 131 S. Ct . 2705 ( 2011) .


26/28

- 26-

Cr awf or d or Davi s and t hus i s not ent i t l ed t o habeas r el i ef under

AEDPA on t hi s gr ound ei t her . 28 U. S. C. 2254( d) .

Li nt on ar gued t hat t he SJ C' s par aphr asi ng of Cr awf or d' s

"woul d be avai l abl e f or use" - - t hat cour t phr ased i t as "woul d be

used" i nst ead - - meani ngf ul l y changed i t s Cr awf or d anal ysi s. 10 Hi s

argument f ai l s. The SJ C acknowl edged Cr awf ord' s gui dance as t o

"t est i moni al " as wel l as t he "pr i mar y pur pose" t est f i r st

i nt r oduced i n Davi s. Li nt on, 924 N. E. 2d at 736- 38. That cour t

conduct ed a t hought f ul r evi ew of t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng t he

st atement and eval uated Harvey' s possi bl e pr i mary pur pose i n

maki ng t he st at ement t o det er mi ne i t was non- t est i moni al , as

r equi r ed. I d. at 549- 51. Mor eover , t he SJ C i s ent i t l ed t o

speci al " l eeway" i n t hi s det er mi nat i on, as i t was appl yi ng a r ul e

t hat was nei t her f ul l y def i ned i n i t s meani ng nor exhaust i ve i n

i t s scope. Al var ado, 541 U. S. at 664; see Cr awf or d, 541 U. S. at

68 ( "We l eave f or anot her day any ef f or t t o spel l out a

10 We al so f i nd t hat Li nt on di d not , as t he Gover nment cont ends,wai ve hi s cl ai m as t o t he SJ C' s phr asi ng of t he Cr awf or d t est .Li nt on r ai sed a Conf r ont at i on Cl ause ar gument i n hi s habeaspet i t i on t hat i ncl uded cl osel y r el at ed r easoni ng. See Logan, 790F. 3d at 70. Thus, hi s t est - phr asi ng ar gument di d not const i t ut e

an " i ndependent gr ound f or r el i ef , " but devel oped an asser t edgr ound f or r el i ef under t he Conf r ont at i on Cl ause. See Companoni ov. O' Br i en, 672 F. 3d 101, 112 n. 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Mor eover , hi sr easoni ng was not "per f unct or y" : i t i ncl uded an ef f or t at"devel oped argument at i on. " See Uni t ed St ates v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) .


27/28

- 27-

compr ehensi ve def i ni t i on of ' t est i moni al . ' ") ; Davi s, 547 U. S. at

822 ( not i ng t hat t he deci si on woul d not pr oduce an "exhaust i ve

cl assi f i cat i on") ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Phoeun Lang, 672 F. 3d

17, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . We agr ee i t was reasonabl e t o f i nd

Harvey' s st atement was not t est i moni al as, al t hough she may no

l onger have been i n i mmedi ate danger , she was di scer ni bl y and

cont i nuousl y upset f r om t he t i me of t he i nci dent onwar d - - and

speaki ng t o her f at her , r at her t han l aw enf or cement .

Even i f t he SJ C' s r ephr asi ng and appl i cat i on of t he

Cr awf ord l anguage was i ncor r ect , and even i f we were t o assume

t hat t hat l anguage coul d be read t o be mor e def i ni t i ve and

exhaust i ve than t he cour t i t sel f cl ai med, i t was not unr easonabl e.

Hensl ey, 755 F. 3d at 731. That t hi s Cour t and ot her ci r cui t s have

used l anguage and anal ysi s i n l i ne wi t h t hat used by t he SJ C adds

f ur t her f or ce t o t he concl usi on t hat t he SJ C' s f or mul at i on i s not

one wi t h whi ch " f ai r mi nded j ur i st s" coul d not agr ee. Ri cht er , 562

U. S. at 88; see, e. g. , Phoeun, 672 F. 3d at 22; Bl ount v. Har dy,

337 Fed. Appx. 271, 276 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cr omer ,

389 F. 3d 662, 675 ( 6t h Ci r . 2004) .


28/28

- 28-

IV. Conclusion

The SJ C di d not r ul e "cont r ar y t o" or unr easonabl y appl y

"cl ear l y est abl i shed Feder al l aw. " Accor di ngl y, we af f i r m t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of Li nt on' s habeas cor pus pet i t i on.

Affirmed.

Linton v. Saba, 1st Cir. (2016)

Documents

Transcript of Linton v. Saba, 1st Cir. (2016)