Reiner v. Woods
Decision Date | 07 April 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 18-1413,18-1413 |
Citation | 955 F.3d 549 |
Parties | Joseph Thomas REINER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey WOODS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: Matthew C. Tymann, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellant. Jared D. Schultz, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Matthew C. Tymann, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellant. Jared D. Schultz, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.
Before: CLAY, ROGERS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
In this habeas case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, both parties agree that the admission of testimonial hearsay statements during petitioner Joseph Reiner's murder trial in Michigan state court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers (because the declarant was never available for cross-examination). The Michigan Court of Appeals made that same determination on direct review. The issue on appeal is whether that error was harmless.
A review of the evidence presented at Reiner's trial paints the picture of a circumstantial case lacking physical evidence or eyewitness testimony placing Reiner at the crime scene. The statements that gave rise to the Sixth Amendment violation here served as the linchpin of the government's case, connecting Reiner to the fruits of the crime in a way no other evidence, testimonial or physical, could. Without those statements, the prosecution's case becomes significantly weaker, such that "grave doubt" exists as to whether their admission had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." O'Neal v. McAninch , 513 U.S. 432, 436, 115 S.Ct. 992, 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995) (citation omitted). We therefore reverse the district court's denial of Reiner's § 2254 petition and remand for further proceedings.
Reiner's "convictions arise from the February 23, 2011[ ] home invasion of 49199 Fairchild Road in Macomb County, where 69-year-old Joanne Eisenhardt lived."
People v. Reiner , No. 313854, 2014 WL 1515371, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2014) (per curiam).1 Eisenhardt was stabbed in the neck with two knives and jewelry was taken from the house, including a ring from Eisenhardt's finger. Eisenhardt survived the stabbing, but she "suffered declining health after the incident and died seven months later." Id. Police officers in New York apprehended Reiner on February 26, 2011, on suspicion of driving a stolen vehicle stemming from a separate incident. He was returned to Michigan to stand trial for the home invasion and stabbing.
At trial, the prosecution sought to introduce several statements of a pawn shop owner named Hadrian Lewandowski. The Michigan Court of Appeals described his statements thus:
Id. at *4. Lewandowski died before trial, however, and Reiner never had an opportunity to cross-examine him. Id. at *3 n.2, *4. The prosecutor sought to introduce Lewandowski's statements during the testimony of the law enforcement officers he had spoken to. Reiner objected, arguing that these statements would violate his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers. The trial court overruled the objection and held "that Lewandowski's statements, although testimonial, were not barred by the Confrontation Clause because they would be used to explain why the police acted as they did and how they came to investigate defendant." Id. at *3.
Lewandowski's statements played a prominent role in the prosecution's case. The prosecution did not present any physical evidence (like fingerprints or DNA) placing Reiner at the crime scene, and eyewitness testimony only placed him in the general area at around the time of the home invasion and stabbing. During opening statements and closing arguments, the prosecutor argued several times that Reiner's possession of Eisenhardt's jewelry at the Gold Shop provided strong evidence that he had attacked her earlier that day. And Lewandowski's statements—which the prosecutor also discussed repeatedly—provided the strongest (if not the only) evidence that Reiner possessed Eisenhardt's jewelry.
The jury convicted Reiner "of assault with intent to murder, MCL 750.83 ; first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2) ; and felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b)." Id. at *1. The trial court sentenced him "to concurrent prison terms of 450 to 720 months for the assault with intent to murder conviction, 150 to 240 months for the home invasion conviction, and life imprisonment for the murder conviction." Id.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Reiner's convictions on direct review, rejecting Reiner's argument that the admission of Lewandowski's statements warranted a new trial. The court first addressed Lewandowski's statement to Detective Ernatt in a voicemail message. "In the message, Lewandowski identified [Reiner] as a person who had been in the Gold Shop the previous day." Id. at *4. The court held that this statement's admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause because "it was offered as background evidence to explain why Ernatt acted as he did in returning to the Gold Shop on February 25, 2011, to conduct further investigation." Id. Reiner does not challenge the introduction of this statement.
As for the remainder of Lewandowski's statements to the police, the court held that they were inadmissible hearsay:
The statements, which show that defendant was in the Gold Shop on the day of the home invasion and that he pawned jewelry, which may have or did include the ring that belonged to Eisenhardt, were strong circumstantial evidence that defendant was the perpetrator of the home invasion. The statements went to the very heart of the prosecutor's case and therefore, were used for the truth of the matter asserted.
Id. The court also held that the statements were testimonial and noted that Reiner had no opportunity to cross-examine Lewandowski. Id. Thus, "the admission of Lewandowski's statements on February 25, 2011, to Ernatt, Willis, and Hanna violated [Reiner's] right of confrontation." Id.
But the court also held that the trial court's error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because "[t]here was evidence other than Lewandowski's statements that connected defendant to the Gold Shop on February 23, 2011, the day of the home invasion." Id. at *5. Specifically, the court cited the following evidence presented at trial:
Based on this evidence, the court concluded that "it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found defendant guilty absent the trial court's error in admitting Lewandowski's February 25, 2011 statements to Ernatt, Willis, and Hanna." Id.
After the Michigan Supreme Court denied Reiner's pro se application for leave to appeal, People v. Reiner , 497 Mich. 903, 856 N.W.2d 38 (2014) (order), Reiner filed a pro se § 2254 petition in the district court, raising four grounds for relief. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation recommending that the court dismiss the petition and deny any subsequent application for a certificate of appealability. Reiner v. Woods , No. 2:15-CV-125, 2017 WL 8222209, at *8 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 13, 2017) (report and recommendation). After Reiner filed timely objections, the district court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed the petition, but granted a certificate of appealability as to Ground III, which argued that "[t]he Court denied Petitioner his 6th Amendment right...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chinn v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
...the Sixth Circuit on habeas review we always apply Brecht and need not also apply AEDPA/Chapman." Id. at 625. See also Reiner v. Woods, 955 F.3d 549, 557 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Balcarcel); Sparks v. Dunaway, 2020 WL 1816059, *9 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 9, 2020) ("The Sixth Circuit recently confirme......
-
Davenport v. MacLaren
...clear that ‘ Brecht is always the test’ for evaluating harmless error on collateral review, even where AEDPA applies." Reiner v. Woods , 955 F.3d 549, 556 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger , 580 F.3d 403, 412 (6th Cir. 2009) ). The majority decision simply took the unremarkabl......
-
Davenport v. Maclaren
...and Brecht ) when the latter obviously subsumes the former." Id. (quoting Fry , 551 U.S. at 120, 127 S.Ct. 2321 ); see Reiner v. Woods , 955 F.3d 549, 556 (6th Cir. 2020) ("The Supreme Court and this court have made clear that ‘ Brecht is always the test’ for evaluating harmless error on co......
-
England v. Hart
...connecting [the defendant] to the fruits of the crime in a way no other evidence, testimonial or physical, could." Reiner v. Woods , 955 F.3d 549, 551 (6th Cir. 2020).Accordingly, we cannot say that we harbor grave doubt as to the effect or influence the affidavit might have had on the jury......
-
General principles
...reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); Medina v. Matesanz , 298 F.3d 98, 101 (1st Cir. 2002); Reiner v. Woods , 955 F.3d 549, 555 (6th Cir. 2020). Where a defendant fails to raise a timely objection, appellate courts apply “plain error review.” See Rule 52(b); see......
-
Trials
...testimonial statements because witness available and defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine witness); Reiner v. Woods, 955 F.3d 549, 554-55 (6th Cir. 2020) (Confrontation Clause violated by admission of testimonial statements given by unavailable witness RIALS T III. 51 Geo. L.......
-
Review Proceedings
...(admission of prosecution’s comment regarding petitioner’s failure to testify cast grave doubt on reliability of verdict); Reiner v. Wood, 955 F.3d 549, 562 (6th Cir. 2020) (wrongfully admitted statement that implicated petitioner’s right to confront witness cast grave doubt on reliability ......