CAREY v. MUSLADIN

Legal Principle at Issue

Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit exceed its authority upon overturning a murder conviction because family members appeared in court wearing buttons with pictures of the victim?

Action

Vacated and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

On May 13, 1994, respondent Mathew Musladin shot and killed Tom Studer outside the home of Musladin's estranged wife, Pamela. At trial, Musladin admitted that he killed Studer but argued that he did so in self-defense. A California jury rejected Musladin's self-defense argument and convicted him of first-degree murder and three related offenses. At Musladin’s murder trial, members of the victim’s family sat in the front row of the spectators’ gallery wearing buttons displaying the victim’s image. Musladin's counsel moved the court to order the Studer family not to wear the buttons during the trial, but the court denied the motion, stating that it saw "no possible prejudice to the defendant."

The California Court of Appeal upheld Musladin’s conviction, stating that he had to show actual or inherent prejudice to succeed on the buttons claim, citing Holbrook v. Flynn (YEAR) as providing the test for inherent prejudice. Musladin, the court ruled, had not satisfied that test.

At the conclusion of the state appellate process, Musladin filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court. In his application, Musladin argued that the buttons were inherently prejudicial and that the California Court of Appeal erred by holding that the victim's family wearing of the buttons did not deprive him of a fair trial. The District Court denied habeas relief but granted a certificate of appealability on the buttons issue.

 The Federal District Court denied Musladin’s habeas petition, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” as determined by this Court in Estelle v. Williams and Flynn.