Anderson v. Cowna

• Decision Date: 15 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-3485,99-3485
• Citation: 227 F.3d 893
• Parties: (7th Cir. 2000) STEVEN ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROGER D. COWAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 893

227 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2000)

STEVEN ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROGER D. COWAN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 99-3485

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Argued June 7, 2000

Decided September 15, 2000

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 97 C 3352--Ruben Castillo, Judge. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Before POSNER, COFFEY and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

Mr. Anderson was tried before a jury in an Illinois trial court and found guilty of first-degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated kidnaping. He was sentenced to a life term, a 30-year term, and a 15-year term, respectively.¹ He then appealed his conviction to the Appellate Court of Illinois; that court upheld his conviction. Thereafter, he sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois, but his petition was denied. Mr. Anderson next filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court. The district court denied his habeas petition but granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Mr. Anderson's Confrontation Clause rights had been violated under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). The district court refused to issue a certificate with respect to Mr. Anderson's remaining two issues: whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel and whether he is entitled to a Batson hearing. For the reasons set forth in the following opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I BACKGROUND

A confidential informant told the police that a man named Lorne Gray was involved in the unsolved murder of Alan Cypin. Over a year earlier, Cypin's body had been found in an alley. The police then questioned Gray, and he confessed to the murder, but also implicated Mr. Anderson. The police then located Mr. Anderson and requested that he appear at the police station.

Upon Mr. Anderson's arrival at the police station, the police placed him under arrest, informed him of his Miranda rights, and then questioned him about his involvement in Cypin's murder. While the police were administering a polygraph test, Mr. Anderson confessed his role in the crime to Officer Garrity. Mr. Anderson then repeated the same confession to Officers Garrity, Harrington, and Puttin. Later in the evening, he repeated his confession to an assistant state's attorney, and, finally, he confessed a fourth time during a court-reported statement.

The State of Illinois ("the State") prosecuted Mr. Anderson for the murder, robbery, and kidnaping of Cypin. Gray was tried simultaneously on the same charges before the same court but by a separate jury. At the trial, Officer Garrity testified about Mr. Anderson's confession to him. Then, Officer Harrington testified that Mr. Anderson had repeated the same story when he had confessed the second time. Only these first two confessions of Mr. Anderson were admitted into evidence. Officer Harrington also testified about Gray's confession, which implicated Mr. Anderson.

II DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254,² provides, in pertinent part, that habeas relief may be granted only if the adjudication of the claim by the state court "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (d)(1). The Supreme Court, in Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1495 (2000), clarified the meaning of this standard. In Williams, the Court explained that a state court decision is "contrary to" Supreme Court precedent "if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law" or "if the state court confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to ours." Id. at 1519. The Court then stated that "a run-of-the-mill state-court decision applying the correct legal rule from our cases to the facts of a prisoner's case would not fit comfortably within sec. 2254(d)(1)'s 'contrary to' clause." Id. at 1520. The Court therefore focused on the second phrase of the same subsection: "unreasonable application" of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. It interpreted "unreasonable application of" as either: "if the state court identifies the correct governing legal rule from this Court's cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner's case" or "if the state court either unreasonably extends a legal principle from our precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply." Id. at 1520.

We review the district court's decision to deny habeas de novo. See Washington v. Smith, 219 F.3d 620, 627 (7th Cir. 2000); Lieberman v. Washington, 128 F.3d 1085, 1091 (7th Cir. 1997). When the case falls under sec. 2254(d)(1)'s "contrary to" clause, we review the state court decision de novo to determine the legal question of what is clearly established law as determined by the Supreme Court and whether the state court decision is "contrary to" that precedent. See Schaff v. Snyder, 190 F.3d 513, 522 (7th Cir. 1999). When the case fits under the "unreasonable application of" clause of sec. 2254(d)(1) however, we defer to a reasonable state court decision. See id. ("Whether the state court's holding involved an 'unreasonable application' of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, is a mixed question of law and fact that we traditionally also review de novo but with a grant of deference to any reasonable state court decision.").

B. Confrontation Clause Violation

Mr. Anderson argues that his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witness against him was violated in the trial court. The trial court admitted into evidence Gray's confession that implicated Mr. Anderson; however, Gray did not take the stand, and Mr. Anderson was unable to cross-examine him. The Appellate Court of Illinois held that the admission of Gray's confession violated Mr. Anderson's rights under the Confrontation Clause. It further held, however, that overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of Mr. Anderson's guilt existed. The court found that the outcome of Mr. Anderson's trial was unaffected by the Confrontation Clause violation and that the error therefore was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Before us, as he did in the district court, Mr. Anderson argues that the admission of Gray's confession constituted a violation of the Sixth Amendment as set forth by the Supreme Court in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).

In Bruton, two defendants, Evans and Bruton, were tried jointly. At their trial, the trial court admitted the pretrial confession of Evans, which implicated Bruton. The Supreme Court held that Evans' confession was not admissible against Bruton unless Evans waived his Fifth Amendment right not to testify so that Bruton would be permitted to cross-examine him. See id. at 127- 28. By admitting Evans' confession against Bruton, the Court determined, Bruton's Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated. See id. Moreover, the Court explained, a limiting instruction was not sufficient to cure the error. See id. at 135-37.

The Supreme Court has explained that a violation of the Bruton rule may be harmless error if there is overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 253 (1969) (explaining that the case against the defendant "was so overwhelming that we conclude this violation of Bruton was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"). "In some cases the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the codefendant's admission is so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper use of the admission was harmless error." Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 430 (1972); see also United States v. Martin, 897 F.2d 1368, 1372 (6th Cir. 1990) ("A federal constitutional error can be held harmless only if the Court is able 'to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967))). Moreover, the Court explained, "unless there is a reasonable possibility that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the conviction, reversal is not required." Schneble, 405 U.S. at 432.

In Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986), the Supreme Court set forth the factors for determining whether a violation of the Confrontation Clause was harmless error. See id. at 684. The Court explained as follows:

Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts. These factors include the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case.

Id.; see also United States v. Eskridge, 164 F.3d 1042, 1044 (7th Cir. 1998) (citing Van Arsdall). In Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 189-90 (1987), the Court gave further guidance on Bruton-type errors and, significantly, gave additional instruction on the methodology for determining whether such an error may be considered harmless. Specifically, the Court held that, when a nontestifying co-defendant's confession is not admissible directly against the defendant, the Confrontation Clause bars its admission at their joint trial even if the jury is instructed to not consider it against the defendant and even if the defendant's own confession is admitted against him. See...