31:
379:. The test indicated prejudice against the defendant must be justified by an essential "state" interest. The appeals court found the test was applicable to behavior by private spectators and that the decision to permit the buttons unfairly prejudiced the defendant. The state appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
338:
The
Supreme Court ruled that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it upheld the conviction. The Court's prior rulings on when courtroom practices prejudiced the right to a fair trial were limited to state-sponsored conduct, and had consequently left it an
334:
relief to overturn a criminal conviction based on the state court's misapplication of established federal law. At issue was whether a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial was violated when relatives of the alleged victim were permitted to sit in the courtroom as spectators
430:
indicated that prior precedent on prejudice in the courtroom applied generally, including to spectators. However, due to prior decisions specifically regarding similar spectator actions and a concern about free speech, Souter didn't find the trial judge had acted unreasonably in permitting the
347:
In 1994 Mathew
Musladin shot and killed Tom Studer. Musladin admitted to killing Studer during the trial, but claimed he did so in self-defense. The jury rejected Musladin's self-defense claim and convicted him of murder. During the trial, members of Studer's family sat in the front row of the
440:
also agreed that prior cases would apply generally to spectator behavior, but didn't find the precedent necessary to indicate that the buttons were coercive or intimidating to the defendant. He endorsed the future creation of such a precedent to clarify matters.
348:
gallery wearing buttons with pictures of Studer. Musladin's attorney objected to the buttons, but the trial court refused to order the buttons removed, saying it saw "no possible prejudice to the defendant." Musladin appealed the decision to the
417:
on the test for inherently prejudicial action by private spectators. Lacking such a holding, it couldn't be said that there was any "clearly established federal law" that the trial court violated by permitting the buttons.
435:
embraced much of Souter's opinion, but disagreed that the First
Amendment would trump concerns about prejudice. The bulk of his concurring opinion endorsed the importance of dicta in guiding lower courts. Justice
367:, because it "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law." The federal law in question was a test for inherent prejudice established by the Supreme Court in
413:, the two cases cited by the appeals court, the holdings were regarding government-sponsored action, whereas the buttons were worn by private spectators. Thomas pointed out that there is no clear court
127:
189:
when courtroom spectators wore buttons depicting murder victim was not "contrary to or unreasonable application of clearly established law." Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
684:
585:
560:
537:
461:
364:
168:
82:
360:
146:
375:
689:
679:
694:
580:
393:
481:
325:
307:
35:
426:
Three justices wrote opinions concurring in the judgment but disagreeing with parts of the reasoning. Justice
505:
142:
519:
512:
160:
153:
349:
123:
119:
643:
625:
589:
564:
541:
465:
186:
172:
74:
634:
110:
Defendant convicted, Santa Clara County
Superior Court (Nov. 1, 1995); conviction upheld,
8:
532:
369:
363:
reversed, finding that the state court's decision on the buttons was in violation of the
244:
616:
311:
592:
567:
544:
652:
485:
468:
63:
432:
212:
139:
96:
9587; 75 U.S.L.W. 4019; 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,315; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 23
437:
388:
236:
224:
77:
248:
220:
126:
June 2, 2000); petition for writ of habeas corpus denied, No. CV-00-01998-JL (
673:
398:
356:
330:
185:
State appellate court's determination that defendant was not deprived of his
427:
256:
232:
204:
661:
164:
93:
335:
during the trial, wearing buttons that displayed the victim's image.
89:
402:
328:
case involving the standard for when a federal court can grant
30:
516:
509:
502:
397:
limits the phrase "clearly established federal law" to the
157:
150:
273:
Thomas, joined by
Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
359:
petition in federal court, which the court denied. The
685:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court
365:
Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
339:open question regarding the conduct of spectators.
122:1997); petition for writ of habeas corpus denied (
671:
515:(9th Cir.); op. withdrawn and superseded, 427
156:(9th Cir.); op. withdrawn and superseded, 427
352:, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
54:Thomas L. Carey, Warden v. Mathew Musladin
612:, 549 U.S. 70 (2006) is available from:
387:In his brief majority opinion, Justice
382:
672:
421:
18:2006 United States Supreme Court case
690:United States habeas corpus case law
13:
508:(9th Cir.); rehearing denied, 427
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
706:
680:United States Supreme Court cases
602:
29:
405:of previous decisions. In both
695:2006 in United States case law
573:
550:
525:
492:
474:
451:
1:
444:
342:
7:
361:Ninth Circuit appeals court
326:United States Supreme Court
324:, 549 U.S. 70 (2006), is a
10:
711:
662:Oyez (oral argument audio)
350:California Court of Appeal
391:began by indicating that
306:
301:
293:
285:
277:
269:
264:
198:
193:
184:
179:
149:); rehearing denied, 427
106:
101:
69:
59:
49:
45:Decided December 11, 2006
42:
28:
23:
43:Argued October 11, 2006
355:Musladin then filed a
187:right to a fair trial
130:May 14, 2003); rev'd
499:Musladin v. LaMarque
383:Opinion of the Court
136:Musladin v. LaMarque
88:127 S. Ct. 649; 166
533:Estelle v. Williams
422:Concurring opinions
370:Estelle v. Williams
245:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
581:Williams v. Taylor
394:Williams v. Taylor
209:Associate Justices
116:People v. Musladin
610:Carey v. Musladin
557:Holbrook v. Flynn
486:§ 2254(d)(1)
458:Carey v. Musladin
431:buttons. Justice
376:Holbrook v. Flynn
321:Carey v. Musladin
317:
316:
312:§ 2254(d)(1)
163:(9th Cir. 2005);
24:Carey v. Musladin
702:
666:
660:
657:
651:
648:
642:
639:
633:
630:
624:
621:
615:
596:
577:
571:
554:
548:
529:
523:
522:(9th Cir. 2005).
496:
490:
488:
478:
472:
455:
194:Court membership
175:1069 (2006).
33:
32:
21:
20:
710:
709:
705:
704:
703:
701:
700:
699:
670:
669:
664:
658:
655:
649:
646:
640:
637:
631:
628:
622:
619:
613:
605:
600:
599:
578:
574:
555:
551:
530:
526:
497:
493:
480:
479:
475:
456:
452:
447:
424:
401:instead of the
389:Clarence Thomas
385:
345:
247:
237:Clarence Thomas
235:
225:Anthony Kennedy
223:
213:John P. Stevens
118:, No. H015159 (
97:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
708:
698:
697:
692:
687:
682:
668:
667:
644:Google Scholar
604:
603:External links
601:
598:
597:
572:
549:
524:
491:
473:
449:
448:
446:
443:
423:
420:
384:
381:
344:
341:
315:
314:
308:28 U.S.C.
304:
303:
299:
298:
295:
291:
290:
287:
283:
282:
279:
275:
274:
271:
267:
266:
262:
261:
260:
259:
249:Stephen Breyer
221:Antonin Scalia
210:
207:
202:
196:
195:
191:
190:
182:
181:
177:
176:
108:
104:
103:
99:
98:
87:
71:
67:
66:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
707:
696:
693:
691:
688:
686:
683:
681:
678:
677:
675:
663:
654:
645:
636:
627:
626:CourtListener
618:
611:
607:
606:
594:
591:
587:
583:
582:
576:
569:
566:
562:
558:
553:
546:
543:
539:
535:
534:
528:
521:
518:
514:
511:
507:
504:
500:
495:
487:
483:
477:
470:
467:
463:
459:
454:
450:
442:
439:
434:
429:
419:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
390:
380:
378:
377:
372:
371:
366:
362:
358:
357:habeas corpus
353:
351:
340:
336:
333:
332:
331:habeas corpus
327:
323:
322:
313:
309:
305:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
265:Case opinions
263:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
211:
208:
206:
203:
201:Chief Justice
200:
199:
197:
192:
188:
183:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
155:
152:
148:
144:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
120:Cal. Ct. App.
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
95:
91:
85:
84:
79:
76:
72:
68:
65:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
609:
595: (2000).
579:
575:
570: (1986).
556:
552:
547: (1976).
531:
527:
498:
494:
476:
471: (2006).
457:
453:
425:
414:
410:
406:
392:
386:
374:
368:
354:
346:
337:
329:
320:
319:
318:
302:Laws applied
257:Samuel Alito
252:
240:
233:David Souter
228:
216:
205:John Roberts
135:
131:
115:
111:
102:Case history
81:
53:
15:
294:Concurrence
286:Concurrence
278:Concurrence
674:Categories
445:References
343:Background
94:U.S. LEXIS
92:482; 2006
60:Docket no.
482:28 U.S.C.
167:granted,
128:N.D. Cal.
90:L. Ed. 2d
70:Citations
608:Text of
407:Williams
399:holdings
270:Majority
147:9th Cir.
132:sub nom.
112:sub nom.
635:Findlaw
617:Cornell
438:Kennedy
433:Stevens
415:holding
289:Kennedy
281:Stevens
180:Holding
665:
659:
656:
653:Justia
650:
647:
641:
638:
632:
629:
623:
620:
614:
584:,
559:,
536:,
501:, 403
484:
460:,
428:Souter
310:
297:Souter
255:
253:·
251:
243:
241:·
239:
231:
229:·
227:
219:
217:·
215:
138:, 403
64:05-785
588:
563:
540:
464:
411:Flynn
403:dicta
171:
165:cert.
107:Prior
590:U.S.
565:U.S.
542:U.S.
517:F.3d
510:F.3d
506:1072
503:F.3d
466:U.S.
409:and
373:and
173:U.S.
158:F.3d
151:F.3d
143:1072
140:F.3d
124:Cal.
83:more
75:U.S.
73:549
593:362
586:529
568:560
561:475
545:501
538:425
520:653
513:647
462:549
169:547
161:653
154:647
676::
469:70
134:,
114:,
78:70
489:.
145:(
86:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.