WPCUK B]}kO"~Nw:4  m 0U4 0 0l 01 0 0 0\ 0  0HQ 0 0^ 0/ 0 0 06 0 0r 0! 0! 0V" 0$# 0# 0~$ 0"% 0% 0X& 0& 0t' 0&( 0( 0>) 0) 0* 0+ 0, 0~- 0`. 0B/ 0/ 020 01 0:1 0Y62 0_2 0 2 03 0z5 B*7 D/7 D+7 08 D/ : 09: 06; 0=; 0:E< 0^< 0<< 1e=U6~=U*= 1u= 72S> 0hc> 0Qw> 0 _? 0? 0@ 0=A 0B 0uB D5TC BC 0C 0DD 1E 72bFF 0DnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnHnH^ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 0uHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 03I ASIKJ 0DKHP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,mailto:jboc@fdap.org(O$\  `&Times New Roman [!["[#[%[&H'[()E)/:i+003|x) U*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x    > ""3XXUSUS.,  _  3AndSpecialBonusFeature:  SelectedNinthCircuitCases#3 b#U3!#3U# *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7?(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?K%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7@(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d>)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7B(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?K%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7@(X75+ ` hp x 5  >)2dxd0KS.SampleKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Li)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#(M3"$ !3XXUSUS.,  WWWW)!dxdx d({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# NOPQRSTXyAGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets ListZY  <$3XXUSUS.,   `   1    _ԀX$X3Notethesedescriptionsonpendingcasesarebasedonreviewofblurbsin  varioussecondarysources(e.g.,WestsSupremeCtreporter),ratherthanreviewof  theunderlyinglowercasesortheactualcert.petitions.(%$  1  84-/ (M3"$ !3XXUSUS.,  (u(3<$ !3XXUSUS.,     `   0  UVE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  !3XXUSUS.,  _   L+J38$Xdd8  #3JL+k#-3HIGHLIGHTSFROMTHEHIGHCOURT    TheU.S.SupremeCourts20022003Term#3-#3  V #3#_   [=3#3 [=#  3f2"`x` `E= ttu d Zf u u (#(# (#(#u u PreparedbyJ.BradleyOConnell    W StaffAttorney,FirstDistrictAppellateProject ,  4 O  5  jboc@fdap.org#3f# [=3 6O  7   @  #3 [=E#3 Sept.12,2003 #3# >  t [=3  #3 [=t#X$X3U.S.SUPREMECOURTTERM    First,inlocalnews.....    Revivalofprosecutionoftimebarredsexoffensesviolatesexpostfactoclause . r  ZNOPQRSTXY(Ay3L"N3"  N3K2A3  0    Stognerv.California(2003)__U.S.__,123S.Ct..2446.Cal.Pen.Code803(g),allowing N revivaloftimebarredsexoffenses,violatesexpostfactoclause.Alawenactedafterthe : expirationofthepreviouslyapplicablestatuteoflimitationsviolatesexpostfacto.Although & v somectshavepreviouslyupheldextensionsofstatutesoflimitationsthathadnotyetexpired, !b untilCal.sFrazierdecisionupholding803(g)therewas apparentunanimitythat !N  resurrectionofanexpiredstatutewouldbeunconstitutional.Itcomeswithinthe2ndofthe ": 4expostfactocategoriesdescribedinCalderv.Bullbyimposingpunishmentonsomeone #& who,priortotheenactment,was notliabletoanypunishmentbyvirtueoftheexpiration $  ofthestatute.Italsomayimplicatethe4thCaldercategory(alteringtherulesofevidence %   tosupplyadeficiencyoflegalproof)byremovinga conclusivepresumptionthat &! otherwisewouldhaveprecludedconviction.N3Kx݌'" (#(# Ќ  "O;"  O; 0  2A3  0` (#(#  Note:803(g)wasenactedin1993&becameeffectiveJan.1,1994.Therefore, r(#! casesinwhichthepreviouslyapplicablestatuteoflimitationshadexpiredpriorto ^)$" 1994comesquarelywithinStognersexpostfactoholding.O;  ݌J*%#` (#` (# Ќ  "O;"  O;0  2A3  0` (#(#  Californiacourtshavebeenwillingtograntreliefonanexpeditedbasiswherethe 6+&$ Stognerviolationisclear.Forexample,theFirstDistricthasgranted motionsfor ",r'% summaryreversalwithinjustafewdaysoffiling.O;݌#-^(&` (#` (#( #Ќ  ButSupremeCourtseesnothingwrongwithlifesentencesforpettythieves.   "N3"  N32A3  0    Ewingv.California(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_..1179.By54vote,SupremeCtholdsthat t 25tolife thirdstrikesentenceforfelonygrandtheftdidnotconstitute cruelandunusual ` punishment.3justiceplurality_opn_Ԁ(OConnor,Rehnquist&Kennedy)acknowledgesthat L  8thAmen.hasa narrowproportionalityprinciplethat appliestononcapitalsentences,but 8  findsEwingssentencewasnot grosslydisproportionateinlightofEwingsown long $ t seriouscriminalrecordincludinghis strikes(robbery&residentialburglary),9prior  ` prisonterms,andhiscommissionofmostofhisoffenseswhileonparoleorprobation.  L  Meanwhile,JusticesScaliaandThomasmaintainthatthe8thAmen.doesntincludea  8   proportionalitytestinthefirstplace.N3<݌$ (#(# Ќ  "N3"  N32A3  0    _Lockyer_Ԁv._Andrade_(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.1166.Alsobya54vote,SupremeCt   overturnsthe9thCir.sgrantofhabeasrelief,wheredefendantreceived50tolifefor2counts   ofpettytheftw/aprior(basedonhistheftsofvideosfromKMart).Though_Andrade_s   sentencewasthemoreegregiousofthetwo(inlightofbothsentencelengthandthede p _minimis_natureofhiscurrentcrimes),sadlyitaroseonfederalhabeas,ratherthandirect \ review(asinEwing).SupremeCtmajorityholdsthatthestatecourts_affirmance_Ԁof H _Andrade_ssentencewasntanunreasonableapplicationofclearlyestablishedU.S.Supreme 4 Ctstandards,asrequiredforhabeasreliefunder_AEDPA_.Because legislatures[have]  p broaddiscretiontofashionasentencethatfitswithinthescopeoftheproportionality  \ principleandthe precisecontoursofthatprincipleare unclear,thestatecourtsdecision H couldntbedeemedobjectivelyunreasonable.N3݌4(#(# Ќ  "O;"  O;d0  2A3  0` (#(#  Seefurtherdiscussionof_Andrade_s_AEDPA_Ԁanalysisbelow.O;d݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  FEDERALHABEAS!_AEDPA_ԀRULES  _AEDPA_ԀStandardofReview  In4cases(3from9thCir.)coveringavarietyofconstitutionalclaims,theSupremeCtreversed X  federalcourtsgrantsofhabeasreliefonthegroundsthatthecasesdidnotsatisfythe_AEDPA_ D! standardofreview!i.e.,thatthestatedecisionsrejectingtheclaimswerenot contrarytooran 0"   unreasonableapplicationofclearlyestablishedU.S.SupremeCtcaselaw(28U.S.C.#3XX$#X$X3#3XX$u #X$X3Ԁ2254(d)): #l! 0  Multipledenialsofhabeasrelief,basedon_AEDPA_Ԁstandard.$D #(#(# "N3"  N3!2A3  0    _Lockyer_Ԁv._Andrade_(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.1166.Reversalof9thCir.sholdingthat &"%  thirdstrikesentenceforpettytheftw/apriorwascruelandunusualpunishment.򀀀Unlike '#& _Andrade_scompanioncase,Ewingv.California(whichcameupondirectreviewfromstate (#' courts),_Andrade_opinionisframedalmostentirelyintermsofthe_AEDPA_Ԁstandardof )$( review,ratherthantheultimatemeritsof_Andrade_s8thAmen.claim.N3!!݌|*%)(#(# Ќ  "O;"  O;X%0  2A3  0` (#(#  Noteworthy_AEDPA_Ԁlessons:Habeaspetitionerpaythepriceforanyuncertainties h+&* orinconsistenciesinSupremeCourtcaselawonasubject.Under_Andrade_s  analysis,theveryfactthattheSupremeCourtsnoncapital cruelandunusualcase  lawwassuchamuddle(_Rummel_,_Solem_,_Harmelin_,etc.)precludedfederalhabeas  relief,becausetheSupremeCourtsownstandardsonthesubjectwerentclearly t establishedinthefirstplace.O;X%%݌`` (#` (# Ќ  "O;"  O;)0  2A3  0` (#(#  Ironically,majority_opn_ԀturnstheRiggsv.Californiacertdenialcomments(inwhich L  4justicespreviouslyquestionedconstitutionalityof thirdstrikesentencesforpetty 8  theft)againstthedefensebecausethosejusticeshadnotedthe uncertaintyofthe $ t SupremeCtcasesonrecidivistpunishment.O;)4)݌ `` (#` (# Ќ  "O;"  O;m+0  2A3  0` (#(#  SupremeCtspecificallydisapproves9thCir.sformulationofthe_AEDPA_Ԁstandard  L  ofreviewascomparableto clearerrorreviewinthefederalsystem. Theglossof  8  clearerrorreviewfailstogiveproperdeferencetostatecourtsbyconflatingerror $  (evenclearerror)withunreasonableness.Federalcts  firmconvictionthatthe   statecourtwas erroneousisntenoughfor_AEDPA_. Ratherthatapplication   mustbeobjectivelyunreasonable.O;m++݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  "N3"  N3.2A3  0    _Woodford_Ԁv._Visciotti_(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.357.Summaryreversalofa9thCir._opn_ p whichhadgrantedhabeasrelieftoaCaliforniadeathpenaltyinmatebasedonpenaltyphase \ IAC.Cal.SupremeCthadorderedanhabeasevidentiaryhearing(afactorthatmay H distinguish_Visciotti_frommostCal.deathpenaltycases),buthadultimately deniedthe 4 petitioninalengthopinion,findingthat,eveniftherewasIAC,itdidnotsatisfythe  p prejudiceprongof_Strickland_.SupremeCtchides9thCir.forgivinginsufficientrespectto  \ theCal.SupremeCtopinion.9thCir.seizeduponCal.passagessayingthatadifferentresult H wasnt probableasamisstatementof_Strickland_s reasonableprobabilitystandard.But 4 elsewheretheCal._opn_Ԁhadsetoutthefull reasonableprobabilityformulation.U.S.   SupremeCtsaysthatthe9ths readinesstoattributeerrorisinconsistentwiththe   presumptionthatstatecourtsknow&followthelaw.Onmerits,Ctalso(1)rejects9thCir.  contentionthatCal._opn_Ԁhadntconsideredtotalityofavailablemitigatingevidence,&(2)  holdsthatCal.findingofnoprejudiceduetoseverityofaggravatingfactorswasnt  objectivelyunreasonable&,under_AEDPA_,federalctcouldntsubstituteitsindependent l judgmentforthatofstatecourt.N3./݌X (#(# Ќ  "N3"  N3j72A3  0    Earlyv.Packer(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.362.Anothersummaryreversal(issuedthe 0"  samedayas_Visciotti_)ofa9thCir.decisiongrantinghabeasrelieftoaCaliforniadefendant #l! ongroundthatjudgesmiddeliberationscommentstodeadlockedjury(comparabletoan $X"  Allencharge)hadcoercedverdict.Again,SupremeCtcriticizes9thCir.fornitpicking $D # passagesintheCal.appellateopinion&rejects9thCir.viewthatstate_opn_Ԁfailedtoconsider %0!$ certainfactors.Again,SupremeCtfindsCal.decisionwasntcontrarytoclearlyestablished &"% U.S.SupremeCtprecedents.N3j77݌'#&(#(# Ќ  "O;"  O;m;0  2A3  0` (#(#  Noteworthy_AEDPA_Ԁlessons.󀀀SometimesrelianceonU.S.SupremeCtcasesfinding (#' errorunderanalogouscircumstancesstillisntenoughtosatisfy_AEDPA_Ԁifthose )$( caseswerentdecidedonfederalconstitutionalgrounds.󀀀Onthatground,Supreme |*%) Ctfindsthat2ofitsowncasesarisingondirectreviewoffederalconvictionsdidnt h+&* justifyreliefunder_AEDPA_Ԁbecausethosedecisionswere basedonoursupervisory  poweroverthefederalcourts,andnotonconstitutionalgrounds.O;m;;݌` (#` (# Ќ  "N3"  N3?2A3  0    Pricev.Vincent(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.1848.6thCir.hadviewedstatetrialjudges t commentsasagrantingofadefensemotionforadirectedverdict(theequivalentofCal.Pen. ` Code1118.1)andhadfoundthatjudgesreconsiderationofissue&denialofdirected L  verdictthefollowingdaywasaviolationofdoublejeopardy.PerSupremeCt,6thCir.erred 8  in _evaluat[ing_]...claimdenovoratherthanthroughthelensof2254(d)(the_AEDPA_ $ t standard).Thestatesupremectsfindingthatthejudgesinitialcommentsdidnotamount  ` toafinalrulingonthedirectedverdictmotionwasntobjectivelyunreasonable,asrequired  L  tograntreliefunder_AEDPA_.N3?-?݌ 8 (#(# Ќ  0  Onedefensevictoryunderthe_AEDPA_Ԁstandard: (#(# "N3"  N3D2A3  0    Wigginsv.Smith(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.2527.Statecourtsrejectionofpenaltyphase   IACclaimwasobjectivelyunreasonableandentitledcapitaldefendanttofederalhabeas.   Defensecounselhadconductednoinvestigationintomitigatingevidenceindefendants p backgroundotherthanreviewingapresentencerptandDept.ofSocialServicesrecords. \ Reasonableinvestigation(followinguponleadsinthesocialservicerecords)wouldhave H uncovered powerfulmitigatingevidenceofhis unfortunatelifehistory,including severe 4 privationandabusewhileincustodyofalcoholicabsenteemotherand physicaltorment,  p sexualmolestationandrepeatedrapeduringhissubsequentyearsinfostercare.N3DGD݌ \(#(# Ќ  "O;"  O;wH0  2A3  0` (#(#  Notethat,liketheSupremeCtsoriginal_opn_Ԁarticulatingthe_AEDPA_Ԁstandardof H review&findingIACunderthatstandard(Williamsv.Taylor(2000)),Wigginswas 4 acapitalcasefromthe4thCir.,whichiscurrentlyregardedasthemostconservative   ofthecircuits,especiallyonhabeasmatters.(Inasimilarvein,theotherhabeas   victorythisterm,MillerElv._Cockrell_(discussedbelow)wasaTexascapitalcase  which5thCir.hadgivenshortshrift(refusingeventoheartheappealbydenyinga  _COA_).)O;wHH݌` (#` (# Ќ    Certificatesof_Appealabilty_ X  "N3"  N3L2A3  0    MillerElv._Cockrell_(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.1029.SupremeCtholdsthat5thCir. 0"  appliedtoodemandingastandardforaCertificateof_Appealability_Ԁtoraise_Batson_claims #l! inaTexasdeathpenaltycase.SupremeCtemphasizesthat_COA_Ԁdeterminationissimplya $X"  thresholdinquiryintowhetherahabeasappealmayproceedandrequiresonlythat $D #  reasonablejuristscoulddebatetheissue orthattheissueswereadequatetodeserve %0!$ encouragementtoproceedfurther.ACircuitcourtshouldnotturnthe thresholdor &"%  gatewaytestofthe_COA_Ԁintoadeterminationoftheultimatemeritsoftheappeal.It '#&  shouldnotdeclinetheapplicationfora_COA_Ԁmerelybecauseitbelievestheapplicantwill (#' notdemonstrateanentitlementtorelief.N3LL݌)$((#(# Ќ   h+&* _BATSON_Ԁ(moreonMillerEl)  "N3 "  N3R2A3  0    MillerElv._Cockrell_(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.1029.BecauseMillerElaroseinthe  contextofaCertificateof_Appealability_Ԁapplication,theSupremeCts_opn_Ԁdidnotdecidethe t ultimatemeritsofthe_Batson_issue.(Infact,asdiscussedabove,theprincipalthemeofthe ` _opn_Ԁisthata_COA_Ԁrequiresonly#3XX$ #X$X3Ԁa thresholdinquiryandshouldnotbecometheoccasion L  foraCircuitsresolutionoftheultimatemeritsofacasewhichjuristscouldfinddebatable.) 8  ЀBut,inexplainingwhyithad nodifficultyconcludingthata_COA_Ԁshouldhaveissued,the $ t Ctmadeseveralwelcomepointsaboutthesubstanceof_Batson_analysis:N3RR݌ `(#(# Ќ  "O; "  O;W0  2A3  0` (#(#  ContrarytotheCaliforniaSupremeCtsrejectionof jurorcomparisons, MillerEl  L  makesclearthataprosecutorsdisparatetreatmentofexcludedminorityjurors  8  andseatedwhitejurorsisavitalpartofthe_Batson_inquiryintothebonafides $  oftheprosecutorsexplanations. 󀀀Inadditiontocomparisonofthecharacteristics   oftheexcludedandseatedjurors( comparativejuroranalysis ),theSupremeCt   alsolookedattheprosecutors disparatequestioningduringvoirdire .For   example,theprosecutorasked53%ofAfricanAmericanjurorsabouttheirviewson   capitalpunishment,whilequestioningonly6%ofwhitejurorsonthattopic.O;WW݌|` (#` (# Ќ  "O; "  O;\0  2A3  0` (#(#  SupremeCtalsofound  historicalevidenceofracialdiscriminationbythe h DistrictAttorneysOffice relevanttothe_Batson_inquiry.O;\5\݌X` (#` (# Ќ  "P "  P]0  0` (#(#2A3  0 ` (#` (#  Note,however,thatCalSupremeCthasnowcomeupwithanewreasonnot H toengageinjurorcomparisons.ItspostMillerEl_opn_ԀinPeoplev.Johnson 4 (2003)30Cal.4th1302,saysthatappellatecourtsarenotrequiredtoengage  p injurorcomparisonsforthefirsttimeonappeal!i.e.,theprosecutors  \ disparatetreatmentofwhiteandminorityjurors(ormale&femalejurors)is H waivedifnotraisedinthetrialcourt.(Ofcourse,priorCal.SupremeCtcase 4 lawhadroundlycondemnedjurorcomparisonsasmeaningless,so,untilnow,   trial_attys_Ԁhadnoincentivetomakethatseeminglyfutileargument.)P]]݌  (# (# Ќ  SEARCHANDSEIZURE&CONFESSIONS  "N3 "  N3a2A3  0    Knappv.Texas(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.1843.Heresasurprise.SupremeCtsonly l  major4thAmendment_opn_Ԁthistermwasasummaryreversal,withresoundingdefense X! victoriesonseveralfronts:N3a%b݌D" (#(# Ќ  "O; "  O;c0  2A3  0` (#(#  (1)Policehandcuffinga17yearoldmurdersuspectinhishomeat3:00am& 0#! transportinghimtothepolicestation(cladonlyinhisboxershorts&Tshirt) $l" amountedtoadefactoarrestrequiringprobablecause.[ReversingTexascourts %X # findingthattheminors okayinresponsetotheofficersstatementthatthey %D!$  neededtotalktohimrenderthewholethingconsensual.]Becausethere &0"% _concededly_Ԁwasnoprobablecause,takingtheminorintocustodywasapatent4th '#& Amen.violation.O;c$d݌($'` (#` (# Ќ  "O; "  O;wg0  2A3  0` (#(#  (2)Atstation,policegaveMirandawarnings,interrogateddefendant,andultimately )$( obtainedconfession.SupremeCourtordersconfessionsuppressedasfruitofthe *%) illegalarrest.Applyingthe_mulit_ԄfactortestofBrownv.Illinoisandothercases,Ct |+&* findsthattheMirandawarningsandwaiverswerenotsufficienttopurgethetaintof  theillegality.O;wgg݌` (#` (# Ќ  SEXOFFENDERSREGISTRATIONAND MEGANSLAWS t "N3 "  N3|j2A3  0    Smithv.Doe(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.1140.RejectsexpostfactochallengetoAlaskas L  sexoffenderregistrationlaw.SupremeCtupholdsretroactiveapplicationoftheregistration 8  statute(whichalsoinvolvespublicationofregistryinformationonInternet)tooffenders $ t whosecrimeswerecommittedbeforeitsenactment.SupremeCourtfindsthatsexoffender  ` registrationisanonpunitiveregulatoryregimenanddoesnotimplicatetheexpostfacto  L  clause.N3|jj݌ 8 (#(# Ќ  "N3 "  N3m2A3  0    ConnecticutDept.OfPublicSafetyv.Doe(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.1160.Rejectsdue   processchallengetoConn.sMeganslaw,whichrequiredregistrationbyallconvictedsex   offendersandpublicationoftheirnames.Litigantcontendedthatthelawviolateddue   processbecauseitdidnotprovideanoffenderanymechanismtoprovethathewasnt   dangerous.TheSupremeCourtheldthat,becausethetriggeringfactorfortheregistration p requirementwasaconvictionofanenumeratedsexoffenseratherthanafindingofcurrent \ dangerous,theabsenceofanopportunitytodisprovedangerousnessdidntviolatedue H process.N3mm݌4(#(# Ќ  DOUBLEJEOPARDY/DEATHPENALTY  \ "N3 "  N3q2A3  0    _Sattazhan_Ԁv.Pennsylvania(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.732.Afterpenaltyphasejuryhung, 4 defendantreceivedan_LWOP_ԀsentencebyoperationofPenn.law.Afteranappellatecourt   reversedtheunderlyingmurderconviction,thestateretriedboththemurderchargeandthe   penaltyphaseandthistimeobtainedadeathpenaltyverdict.SupremeCtholdsthat  impositionofdeathsentenceonsecondtrial,afterfirsthadresultedinalifesentence,didnot  violatedoublejeopardy.Ctfindsthatthelifesentenceimposedaftertheinitialmistrial  wasntequivalenttoacquittalforjeopardypurposesbecause(incontrastto_Bullington_Ԁv. l Missouri)itwasnttheresultofanactualjuryverdictdetermininglifetobetheappropriate X  penalty.N3qq݌D!(#(# Ќ  "O;"  O;v0  2A3  0` (#(#  I_mportant_Ԁlimitstothe_Sattazhan_Ԁholding:ThisshouldntaffectCaliforniacapital 0"  cases(atleastundercurrentCal.standards).Cal.jeopardyclauseprovidesbroader #l! protectionsthanfederalone.Exceptwheretheinitialsentenceis unauthorized, $X" Cal.caselawsquarelyprohibitsimpositionofamoreseveresentenceonretrial $D # followingasuccessfulposttrialappeal.(Peoplev.Henderson(1963)60Cal.2d482; %0!$ seePeoplev.Hanson(2000)23Cal.4th355[reaffirmingprinciplesofHenderson].)O;vv݌&"%` (#` (# Ќ  "O;"  O;,z0  2A3  0` (#(#  _Sattazhan_onlydeterminedthedoublejeopardyclaimanddidntaddressother '#& potentialfederalconstitutionalchallenges,suchasdueprocess.Inparticular,it (#' didntaddresswhetherthedecisiontoretrypenaltyphaseafterthesuccessfulmurder )$( appealcouldgiverisetoavindictiveprosecutionclaim.O;,zYz݌|*%)` (#` (# Ќ   h+&* SOMEINTERESTINGITEMSFROMOTHERHIGHPROFILECASES    Crossburning&inferencesandpresumptionsinjuryinstructions.  "N3"  N3W}2A3  0    Virginiav.Black(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.1536.SupremeCtupholdsmostaspectsof t aVirginiacrossburningstatuteagainst1stAmen.challengesbecausethestatutepunished ` onlycrossburningswith intenttointimidate.ButtheSupremeCtreversesonedefendants L  convictionbecause(pursuanttoanotherprovisionofthestatute)thecourtinstructedthejury 8  thatburningofacrossinpublicview shallbeprimafacieevidenceofanintentto $ t intimidate. Asconstruedbythejuryinstruction,theprimafacieevidenceprovisionstrips  ` awaytheveryreasonwhyaStatemaybancrossburningwithintenttointimidate.Theprima  L  facieevidenceprovisionpermitsajurytoconvictineverycrossburningcaseinwhich  8  defendantsexercisetheirconstitutionalrightnottoputonadefense.Evenwhenthereis $  defenseevidence,theprovisionmakesitmorelikelythatthejurywillfindanintentto   intimidateregardlessoftheparticularfactsofthecase.Thoughtheplurality_opn_Ԁdoesnt   mentionit,thissoundslikea1stAmen.equivalentof_Sandstrom_error,anunlawful   presumptionorinferenceinstruction.However,theSupremeCtreversesthatdefendants   convictiononthebasisoftheunconstitutional primafacieinstructionwithoutany p discussionofharmlesserrorandprejudice.(Whatabout_Yates_Ԁv._Evatt_,_Neder_Ԁv.U.S.,etc.?)N3W}}݌\(#(# Ќ  "O;"  O;0  2A3  0` (#(#  ThoughtheCtdoesntelaborateonit,thedispositionmaybeattributabletothefact H thattheinstruction(whichisdescribedasVirginiasconstructionofthestatuteitself) 4 rendersthestatutefacially_unconsitutional_.O;݌ p` (#` (# Ќ    Sodomy&internationallaw H "N3"  N3χ2A3  0    Lawrencev.Texas(2003)__U.S.__,123_S.Ct_.2472.Asinlastyearsopinionbarring 4 executionofthementallyretarded(Atkinsv.Virginia),SupremeCtconsidersevolving   internationallaw,especiallyEuropeanhumanrightsdecisions,instrikingdownTexas   sodomystatute.N3χ݌(#(# Ќ  COMINGATTRACTIONS l Whilethe20022003Termwasheavyonapplicationsofthe_AEDPA_Ԁstandardofreview,20032004 D! promisesareturntoasubjectlargelymissingfromthejustconcludedterm!thelegalityofpolice 0"  conductinsearchesandconfessions&thescopeoftheexclusionaryrule. #l! Search&seizure:\ ]%  1      ׀ $D # Ѐ %0!$ "N3"  N3D2A3  0    Marylandv._Pringle_,No.02809.Probablecausetoarrestwhenalloccupantsofcardeny &"% ownershipofdrugsfoundinvehicle.N3Dq݌'#&(#(# Ќ  "N3"  N32A3  0    UnitedStatesv.Banks,No.02473.Knocknoticeissues(1520secondsdelaybeforeforced  entry).N3݌(#(# Ќ  "N3"  N32A3  0    Arizonav.Gant,No.021019._Belton_autosearchissues!searchofcarincidenttoarrestof ` recentoccupant.N3݌L (#(# Ќ  "N3"  N3P2A3  0    Illinoisv._Lidster_,No.021060.Legalityofinvestigativeroadblock/checkpointseeking $ t informationonaweekoldaccident.(AfollowuptoCityofIndianapolisv.Edmond(2000)  ` whichbarreduseofsuchacheckpointasatoolfordetectingdrugtraffickers.)N3P}݌ L (#(# Ќ  Confessions $  "N3"  N32A3  0    Missouriv._Siebert_,No.021731.Intwostageinterrogation,policedeliberatelyfailedto   giveMirandawarningsandobtainedan offtherecordconfession.Thentheyadministered   Mirandaadvisementsandobtainedanotherconfessionfortherecord(tothesameeffectas   theillegallyobtainedone).DosubsequentMirandawarningspurgethetaintofanearlier p Mirandaviolationandallowadmissionofthesecondconfession(pursuanttoOregonv. \ _Elstad_)wheretheinitialMirandaviolationwasadeliberatepolicetactic?N3݌H(#(# Ќ  "O;"  O;0  2A3  0` (#(#  Thoughthecasesarentnecessarilyidentical,_Siebert_#3XX$U#X$X3Ԁposesissuessimilartothose 4 recentlyaddressed(veryfavorably)byCal.SupremeCtin#3XX$(#X$X3Peoplev.Neal#3XX$ڗ#X$X3(2003)31  p #3XX$*#X$X3Cal.4th#3XX$#X$X3Ԁ63.Nealfoundthedefendantsconfessionsinvoluntaryunderthetotalityof  \ circumstancesinthatcase(includingthedefendantsyouthandinexperience,the H officers badgeringanddisregardofrepeatedinvocationsoftherighttosilence,X$XXX$ a 4 promiseandathreatmadebytheofficer, #X$XXX$/##3XX$ט#33X$X3thedeprivationandisolationimposedon   defendantduringhisconfinement,and#3XX$#3###3#X$X3#X$XXX$#X$XXX$#3XX$,#3#n####3#X$X3theintentionalcharacteroftheMiranda   violation.Consequently,theconfessionsinthatcasewereinadmissibleforany  purpose,includingimpeachment.O;L݌` (#` (# Ќ  "N3"  N32A3  0    _Fellers_Ԁv.UnitedStates,No.026320.6thAmen._Massiah_typeissuesconcerninga l _Mirandized_statementobtainedfromanarresteddefendantwhohadjustbeenindictment X  (triggeringrighttocounsel).N3݌D!(#(# Ќ  "N3"  N32A3  0    UnitedStatesv._Patane_,No.021183.Suppressionofphysicalevidenceobtainedasfruitof #l! aMirandaviolation.N3̠݌$X"(#(# Ќ  Confrontationclause %0!$ "N3"  N372A3  0    Crawfordv.Washington,No.029410.Admissibilityofa_nontestifying_Ԁcodefendants '#&  interlockingstatement.N37d݌(#'(#(# Ќ  HABEASEXHAUSTION |*%)  h+&* "N3"  N3ۣ2A3  0    Baldwinv.Reese,No.02694{reviewof9thCir.s_opn_ԀinReesev.Baldwin(9thCir.2002)  282F.3d1184}.Sufficiencyofpresentationoffederalnatureofclaimtostateshighest  court.Althoughbodyofpetitiondidntexplicitlyfederalizeclaim,9thCir.foundthefederal  constitutionalclaimadequatelypresentedbecausethelowercourtopinionwhichwasbefore t thestatesupremecourtexplicitlyaddresseditasafederalconstitutionalissue.N3ۣ݌`(#(# Ќ  DEATHPENALTYHABEAS!IAC&OTHERISSUES 8  "N3"  N362A3  0    Banksv._Cockrell_,No.028286.PenaltyphaseIAC&Bradyissuesonfederalhabeas  ` review.Notethat,likelasttermsMillerElv._Cockrell_,BanksisaTexasdeathpenaltycase  L  inwhichthe5thCir.deniedhabeasrelief.N36c݌ 8 (#(# Ќ    ********   c SELECTEDNUGGETSFROMTHENINTHCIRCUIT  p JURYINSTRUCTIONS H Constitutionalrighttoinstructionsondefense  p "N3"  N3Y2A3  0    Bradleyv.Duncan(9thCir.2002)315F.3d1091.Habeasreliefgrantedbasedonstatetrial H ctsrefusalofentrapmentinstructions.Bradley_opn_Ԁconfirmsthat,wherethereissufficient 4 evidencetosupportadefenserecognizedbystatelaw, arefusalofinstructionsonthat   defensetheoryisfederalconstitutionalerror. Thefailuretoinstructthejuryon  Bradleysdefensetheoryofentrapmentwasnotsimplyastatelawerror.Italsoeffecteda  violationofBradleysdueprocessrights.N3Y݌(#(# Ќ  "O;"  O;0  2A3  0` (#(#  9thCir.findsthattheprinciplethatdefenseis entitledtoaninstructionastoany  recognizeddefenseforwhichthereexistsevidencesufficientforareasonablejury t tofindinhisfavoriswellestablishedfor_AEDPA_ԀpurposesinlightofMathewsv. `  UnitedStates. Hence,bothMathewsv.U.S.&Bradleyv.Duncanarevaluable L! authoritiesfor federalizinganyargumentonrefusalofinstructionsona <"  defense. 󀀀O;ۭ݌(#x!` (#` (# Ќ  "O;"  O;װ0  2A3  0` (#(#  9thCir.alsofindsthatstateappellatectsholdingthatevidencewasntsufficientto $h" supportentrapmentinstructionswas anunreasonabledeterminationofthefactsin %T # lightoftheevidencepresented,warrantinghabeasreliefunder_AEDPA_.O;װ݌%@!$` (#` (# Ќ  "P"  P0  0` (#(#2A3  0 ` (#` (#  Though_opn_Ԁdoesnotputitinquitetheseterms,importisthat,while &,"% requirementsforadefensemaybedefinedbystatelaw,whetherevidenceis '#& sufficienttosupportadefenseunderthosestatedefinedstandardsisafederal ($' constitutionalquestion.(Justasstatelawdefineselementsofanoffense,but )$( sufficiencyofevidencetosupportaconvictionunderreasonabledoubt *%) standardisadueprocessquestion.)P݌x+&* (# (# Ќ  "P"  P0  0` (#(#2A3  0 ` (#` (#  Caveat: Cert.pet.ispending .OnepossiblevulnerabilityisthatMathewsv.  UnitedStateswasanappealofafederalcriminalconviction.Itsnotentirely  clearwhethertheopinionrestedondueprocessorsimplycriminallaw  principlesgoverningthefederalsystem.(SeeearlierdiscussionofEarlyv. x Packer.)P݌d (# (# Ќ  ݀ P  Judgescommentequivalenttodirectedverdict <  "N3"  N3Ӹ2A3  0    Powellv._Galaza_(9thCir.2003)328F.3d558.Powellreceived3rdstrike25tolifesentence  d forfailuretoappear(Cal.Pen.Code1320.5)forsentencingonadrugpossessioncount  P  (afterhehadreluctantlytestifiedforprosecutioninamurdertrial).Defendantclaimedhe  <  didntappearbecausehewasafraidhedbekilledinprison.But ctspecificallycommented (  tojurythat,byhistestimony,Powellhadadmittedtheintentelement ofthefailureto   appearcharge! thatheintendedtoevadethecourtprocess.Becausethejudgesstatement   effectivelyremovedacontestedelementfromthejurysconsideration,9th_Cir.finds_ԀthatCal.   appellatects cursoryrejectionoftheclaimwas contrarytocontrollingU.S.Supreme   Ctprecedents(_Sandstrom_Ԁv.Montana&_Carella_Ԁv.California),andPowellwasentitledto | habeasreliefunder_AEDPA_.BytellingthejurorsthatPowellhadadmittedheintendedto h evadetheprocessofthecourt,thejudge ineffectinstructedthejurythattheintentelement T hadbeensatisfied.Moreover,9thCir.viewsthejudgesstatementtojurorsas tantamount @ toadirectedverdictonacontestedelementofthechargeandnotsubjecttoharmless 0 erroranalysis .N3Ӹ݌l(#(# Ќ  "O;"  O;\0  2A3  0` (#(#  The9thCir.hadruledmuchthesamewayinthiscasethepreviousyear,butthe  \ SupremeCthadremandeditforreconsiderationinlightofEarlyv.Packer(oneof H itssummaryreversalsofanother9thCir.habeasgrant).But,onremand,the9thCir. 4 stucktoitsgunsandgrantedreliefunderthe_AEDPA_Ԁstandard.O;\݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  Effectoferroneousintentinstruction  "N3"  N32A3  0    Hov.Carey(9thCir.2003)332F.3d587.Trialctmistakenlyinstructedthatitsgeneral  intentinstr_uction_Ԁ(_CALJIC_Ԁ3.30)appliedto2nddegreemurderbasedonimpliedmalice.9th l  Cir.findsCal.appellatectsanalysisofthedefectiveinstructions anunreasonable X! applicationofclearlyestablishedfederallawinseveralrespects.N3I݌D" (#(# Ќ  "O;"  O;0  2A3  0` (#(#  Cal.ctanalyzedtheinstructionsunderthe  reasonablelikelihood standard,but 0#!  thattestappliesonlytoambiguousinstructions .Thestatementapplyingthe  $p" generalintentinstructiontoimpliedmalice wasflatlyerroneous,notambiguous.O;݌%` #` (#` (# Ќ  "O;"  O;0  2A3  0` (#(#  Cal.appellatectalsoreliedontheattorneysclosingarguments,whichcorrectly %L!$ describedtheimpliedmalicestandard.Butjuriesarepresumedtofollowthects &8"% instructions,notargumentsofcounsel.O;݌'$#&` (#` (# Ќ  DEATHPENALTYHABEASREVIEW!RETROACTIVITYOFRING )$( "N3"  N32A3  0    _Summerlin_Ԁv.Stewart(9thCir.Sept.2,2003)__F.3d__,2003WL220388399(enbanc). +&* 9thCir.holdsthatRingv.Arizona,requiringjurydeterminationofchoice_btwn_Ԁdeathpenalty  &lifeimprisonment,isretroactivelyapplicable,eventocaseswhichbecamefinalondirect  reviewpriortoRing._Teague_Ԁv.LanedoesnotbarretroactivityofRingfortworeasons:N3݌(#(# Ќ  "O;"  O;0  2A3  0` (#(#  Unlike_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey(which9thCir.hasfoundnonretroactive),9thCir. t findsthatRingisadecisionofsubstantiveratherthanonlyprocedurallawbecause ` Ringeffectivelyredefinesthesubstantiveoffenseof capitalmurderinArizona.O;݌L ` (#` (# Ќ  "O;"  O;0  2A3  0` (#(#  Second,evenifitsconsideredprocedural,Ringqualifiesasa X$XXX$watershedrule"that 8  altered bedrockproceduralelementsessentialtothefairnessoftheproceeding.9th $ t Cir.alsonotesthatRingsrequirementofjurydeterminationsofpenaltywillenhance  ` theaccuracyofthefactfindingprocess.O;)݌ L ` (#` (# Ќ  "O;"  O;i0  2A3  0` (#(#  Also,noteJudgeReinhardtsconcurringopinion,whichmakesseveralmore  8  sweepingstatementsaboutadministrationofthedeathpenaltyingeneral: #X$XXX$#X$XXX$Few $  seriouslydoubtthatthedeathpenaltyisgenerallyimposedinanarbitrarymannerin   thisnation.O;i݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  #X$XXX$#HABEASEXHAUSTION&PROCEDURALDEFAULT     Exhaustion!NecessityofPresentingFederalBasisofClaimtoStatesHighestCourt. \ "N3"  N32A3  0    Petersonv._Lampert_(9thCir.2003)319F.3d1153(enbanc).Petition(filedbycounsel)to 4 OregonSupremeCourtdidnotfairlypresentfederalconstitutionalbasisforIACclaim,  p wherethatpetitionexpresslycitedtoOregonConstitution,ratherthan6th&14thAmensof  \ U.S.Constitution,didnotrefertoX$XXX$_Strickland_#X$XXX$#oranyotherfederalcases,andframedclaimas H  inadequateassistanceofcounsel(thetermcustomarilyusedforIACtypeclaimsunderthe 4 stateconstitution)ratherthan ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel(theusualfederal   constitutionalterm).Inviewofthepetitionsexpressinvocationofstateconstitution,   withoutreferencetofederalconstitution,itscitationofstatecaseswhichreferredtoboth  constitutionalprovisionswasntenoughtoputstatecourtonnoticethatpetitionwas  assertingafederalclaim.(Becausethiswasa counseledpetition,9thCir.doesnotemploy  liberalconstructionprinciplesapplicabletoprosepleadings.9thCir.viewsthefocuson l Oregon_constit_Ԁrightasa strategicchoice...nottopresentthefederalissueinthehopeof X  convincingtheOregonSupremeCt...tograntreview.N3݌D!(#(# Ќ  "N3"  N32A3  0    Butcompare Sandersv.Ryder(9thCir.Sept.4,2003)__F.3d__,2003WL22053440.A #l! prosepetitiontoWashingtonSupremeCourtwassufficienttoexhaustfederalIAC,even  $\" thoughpetitionincludedonecitetoWashingtonconstitutionalrighttocounseland#3XX$W#X$X3didnt $H # explicitlyciteX$XXX$_Strickland_#X$XXX$#or6thAmen..IncontrasttoPeterson,Sanderspetitionwasprose %4!$ ratherthan counseledandconsistentlyframedissueas ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel & "% (thecustomaryfederalconstitutionalterm).Moreover,Washingtoncaseshavetreated ' #& effectiveassistanceofcounselrightunderstateconstitutionas coextensivew/6th (#' Amend/_Strickland_andtypicallyanalyzeIACclaimsunderaX$XXX$_Strickland_#X$XXX$u#testwithout )$( distinguishingbetweenstateandfederalclaims.Also,thoughhispetitiondidntdoso, *%) SandersdidexpresslyciteX$XXX$_Strickland_#X$XXX$#inhisreplybrieftoWashingtonSupremeCourt.N3݌l+&*(#(# Ќ  ProceduralDefault!ConsistencyofCaliforniasApplicationofClark/RobbinsHabeasTimeliness  Rules.   "N3 "  N3"2A3  0    Bennettv.Mueller(9thCir.2003)322F.3d573,cert.pet.pending.9thCir.findsthat \ Californiasproceduraldefaultrulesfortimelinessofhabeaspetitionsare independentbut H  maynotbe adequate.AsofAug.3,1998,dateof_Cal.Supreme_ԀCt._opn_,InreRobbins 4  (1998)18Cal.4th770,theClark/Robbinstimelinessrulesare independent,i.e., freeof  p entanglementwithfederallawbecauseCal.courtslookssolelytostatelawinapplying  \ timelinessstandardsandexceptions.Butthereisa genuinequestionwhetherthoserules  H  areregularlyandconsistentlyapplied.N3"O݌ 4 (#(# Ќ  "O;!"  O;,0  2A3  0` (#(#  9thCir.concludesthatthepetitionermust placeinissuetheadequacyofthestate   proceduralbar byassertingspecificfactualallegations...demonstratinginconsistent   applicationoftherule.Butwhenhedoesso, theultimateburdenisthestates    toshowthatthestatetimelinessrulehasbeenregularlyandconsistentlyapplied. 9th   Cir.remandstodistrictcourttodetermineconsistencyissue w/statebearing   burdenofproof(butnoremandproceedingshaveoccurredyetsincestateisseeking x cert.).O;,Y݌d` (#` (# Ќ  "O;!"  O;0  2A3  0` (#(#  9thCir.alsonotesthat,eveniftimelinessrulesareconsistentlyappliedincapital P cases,thatdoesntresolveconsistentlyofpracticeinnoncapitalcasesbecausethe < statestandardsaredifferent.#3XX$#X$X3O;݌(x` (#` (# Ќ  _)"O;!"  O;0  2A3  0` (#(#  )_##%" "%"! !"!   !ProceduralDefault!PendingEnBancConsiderationofAdequacyofCaliforniasWaiverRulesre P FailuretoFederalizeObjectionsatTrialLevel.% %   ## < "N3!"  N32A3  0    _Chein_Ԁv._Shumsky_(9thCir.2003)323F.3d748(panel_opn_),rehearingenbancgranted,panel  _opn_Ԁvacated,X$XXX$2003WL21962483(Aug.13,2003).LikeBennettv.Mueller,&this&''(_Chein_Ԁ(''&&involves  a adequateandindependent/consistentapplicationissue,butitalsopresents(ina  proceduraldefault,ratherthananexhaustioncontext)issuesoftheadequacyof   federalizationofclaimsatthetriallevel,similartotheappellatefederalizationissuesin p Petersonv.Lampertand#X$XXX$3#Sandersv.Ryder.󀀀DuringCal.perjurytrial,Cheinobjectedon \   relevancegroundsto(1)testimonyofciviltrialjudgeasawitness,and(2)DAs H! statementsreferringtofactsoftheciviltrial.Cal.appellatecourtfoundthose relevance 4"  objectionsinadequatetopreservedueprocesschallengestothesametestimonyandDA  #p! statementsandrefusedtoconsiderthefederalconstitutionalclaims.Panelopnviewedthis  $\" asjustanotherapplicationofCal. contemporaneousobjectionruleandcitedearliercases $H # treatingitas adequateandindependent.Enbancreviewshouldprovide9thCir. %4!$ opportunitytoconsiderwhetherCaliforniaappellatecourtsapplythatwaiverrule & "% consistentlyinsituationswheretrialcounseldoesobjectbutdoesntexplicitlyfederalizethe ' #& objection.#3XX$K#