Rapelje v. Blackston

Background

Junior Fred Blackston was tried in Michigan for first-degree murder after five people testified against him. A new trial was ordered. Before the retrial, two witnesses signed written statements recanting their earlier testimony, refused to answer questions at the second trial, and were declared unavailable. The trial court read their prior testimony to the jury but excluded the written recantations. Blackston was convicted again, and Michigan’s highest court affirmed. He sought federal habeas relief, and the District Court granted the writ; a divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed that decision.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses includes a clearly established federal right to admit unavailable witnesses’ written recantations for impeachment. Under the federal habeas law (AEDPA), a state conviction can be overturned only if the state court unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law. The dissenting opinion explained that this Court’s precedents have never clearly held that the Confrontation Clause requires admitting such out-of-court recantations and that the Sixth Circuit improperly treated an extension of earlier decisions as “clearly established.” The majority denied review, leaving the lower-court rulings intact.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to take the case, the issue was not finally decided on the merits. State and lower federal courts remain the source of law on whether written recantations must be admitted. Defendants challenging convictions may therefore rely on state evidence rules or seek other federal arguments, but no new national rule was announced.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dissented from the denial and argued the Court should have granted review and summarily reversed the Sixth Circuit’s conclusion about a clearly established confrontation right.