Carey v. Musladin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carey v. Musladin

Argued October 11, 2006
Decided December 11, 2006


Full case name:	Thomas L. Carey, Warden v. Mathew Musladin

Docket #:	05-785

Citations:	549 U.S. ___; 127 S. Ct. 649; 75 U.S.L.W. 4019; 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,315; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 23

Prior history:	Defendant convicted, Santa Clara County Superior Court (Nov. 1, 1995); conviction upheld, sub nom. People v. Musladin, No. H015159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997); petition for writ of habeas corpus denied (Cal. June 2, 2000); petition for writ of habeas corpus denied, No. CV-00-01998-JL (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2003); rev'd sub nom. Musladin v. LaMarque, 403 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.); reh'g denied, 427 F.3d 647 (9th Cir.); op. withdrawn and superseded, 427 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 126 S.Ct. 1769 (2006)

Holding

State appellate court's determination that defendant was not deprived of his right to a fair trial 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.

Court membership

Chief Justice: John Roberts
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito

Case opinions

Majority by: Thomas
Joined by: Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
Concurrence by: Stevens
Concurrence by: Kennedy
Concurrence by: Souter

Laws applied

28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1)

Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. ___ (2006) is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the standard for when a federal court can grant habeas corpus 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 during trial, wearing buttons that displayed the victim's image.

The Supreme Court ruled that the state court did not unreasonably apply 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 open question regarding the conduct of spectators.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court's opinion, which was joined by five justices. Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter all filed separate opinions concurring in the Court's judgment.