Habeas corpus; 28 USC § 2254; The Confrontation Clause; U.S. Const. amend. VI; Davis v. Alaska; Crawford v. Washington; Davis v. Washington; Hearsay; FRE 801; Harmless error analysis; Davis v. Ayala; O’Neal v. McAninch; § 2254(d)(1)–(2); Applicable standard; Brecht v. Abrahamson; Rosencrantz v. Lafler; Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA); Fry v. Pliler; Chapman v. California; Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger; Whether the Confrontation Clause violation was harmless; Delaware v. Van Arsdall; Jensen v. Romanowski; McCarley v. Kelly; Madrigal v. Bagley; Vasquez v. Jones; Blackston v. Rapelje; Napue v. Illinois; Calvert v. Wilson; Cotto v. Herbert (2d Cir.); Brinson v. Walker (2d Cir.); Clark v. O’Leary (7th Cir.)

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court reversed the district court’s denial of petitioner-Reiner’s petition for habeas corpus where the Michigan trial court erroneously admitted hearsay statements and the government’s case was circumstantial. Reiner was convicted of robbing a home and stabbing the home’s occupant, eventually resulting in her death. At trial, the prosecution introduced statements from a pawnbroker (L) that indicated Reiner may have possessed a ring stolen from the victim’s home. This information was given through the testimony of police officers, since L had died before trial. Reiner argued that this violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, but the trial court allowed most of the testimony because the statements “‘would be used to explain why the police acted as they did and how they came to investigate defendant.’” These statements comprised a significant portion of the evidence against Reiner, with no physical evidence such as DNA or fingerprints offered. He was convicted of assault with intent to murder, first-degree home invasion, and felony murder. Although the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that most of L’s statements should not have been admitted, it held that the admissions were harmless in view of other evidence against Reiner. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. All parties agreed that the AEDPA applied. In “‘this Circuit, Brecht is the standard for reviewing all (non-structural) errors on collateral review.’” The court then considered the merits of Reiner’s claim. Applying the Van Arsdall factors, it held that the statements were inadmissible hearsay and central to the prosecution’s case, especially where the prosecution cited the testimony in the opening statement and closing argument. Also, there was a lack of physical evidence. L’s “statements provided the strongest evidence in the prosecution’s case of Reiner’s guilt.” The court rejected the government’s argument that his statements were cumulative. It noted that without the statements, the government’s case was circumstantial, and that there was no opportunity to cross-examine L where he died before trial. Thus, the court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for a conditional writ.