Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: Justice Thomas has the opinion in 05-785, Carey v. Musladin.
Argument of Justice Thomas
Mr. Thomas: This case comes to us on the writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Respondent was convicted of first degree murder for killing a man outside the home of his estranged wife.
At respondent’s trial several members of the victim’s family sat on the front row of the spectators gallery wearing buttons with the photo of the victim on them.
Respondent asked to have the family members remove the buttons but the California Trial Court denied his request.
The California Court of Appeals affirmed respondent’s conviction.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted habeas corpus relief concluding that the California Appellate Court’s denial of his request was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal Law.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.
Under the federal habeas corpus statute Federal Courts may not grant habeas corpus unless the relevant State Court decision is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by this court.
In the Estelle v. Williams and Holbrook v. Flynn this court address claims that State sponsored courtroom practice has violated defendant’s fair-trial rights.
But we have never addressed a claim like this one in which it is alleged that private-actor courtroom conduct was so inherently prejudicial that it deprived a defendant of a fair-trial.
Reflecting the lack of guidance from this court, State Courts, and lower Federal Courts, have taken widely varying in considering claims of inherent prejudice resulting from private-actor courtroom conduct.
We go to great link to point out that this is not the case involving situation in which the trial is overwhelmed by mob rule or mob activity and court has dealt with that in the past.
Given the lack of holding from this court regarding the potentially prejudicial effect of spectator’s courtroom conduct of the kind involved here it cannot be said that the California Appellate Court unreasonably applied clearly established Federal Law.
Justices Stevens, Kennedy and Souter have each filed opinions concurring in the judgment.
