Rapelje v. Blackston
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal over whether a Michigan murder defendant had a constitutional right to have two witnesses' recanted statements read to his jury. Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dissented, arguing the Court should have summarily reversed a lower court that granted habeas relief based on a right the Supreme Court had never actually recognized.
The dissent's broader concern is that federal appeals courts, especially the Sixth Circuit, were loosely applying the federal habeas statute by treating their own extensions of Supreme Court precedent as if the Supreme Court itself had already 'clearly established' them.
How it got here: A Michigan trial and appellate court affirmed the conviction; a federal district court granted habeas relief; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, and the state sought Supreme Court review, which was denied.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Junior Fred Blackston was convicted in Michigan of first-degree murder based on testimony from five witnesses. After a retrial was ordered, two witnesses recanted their testimony in writing but then refused to testify again. The trial court read their earlier testimony to the jury but excluded the written recantations, and Blackston was convicted again and sentenced to life in prison.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court have taken up and reversed a ruling that let a man's federal habeas case proceed over excluded witness recantations?
Why it matters
This case matters mainly for how federal courts review state criminal convictions on habeas petitions. If lower federal courts can grant relief based on rights they infer rather than rights the Supreme Court has explicitly established, state convictions become easier to overturn in federal court even when state courts followed existing law.
What changes now
Because certiorari was denied, the Sixth Circuit's decision granting conditional habeas relief to Blackston stands, and the state must retry him or release him consistent with that ruling. The denial is not a ruling on the merits of the underlying constitutional question, and the dissenters' views did not become binding law. The case sets no new precedent because the Court chose not to review it.
What this does not decide
Because the Court denied certiorari, it did not rule on whether the Confrontation Clause requires admitting a recanting witness's written statement. The dissent's reasoning reflects only three justices' views and is not a holding of the Court; the underlying legal question remains unresolved by the Supreme Court.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Scalia
“We have never held-nor would the verb "to confront" support the holding-that confrontation includes the right to admit out-of-court statements into evidence.”Scalia's core objection to the Sixth Circuit's reading of the Confrontation Clause.
Justice Scalia argued the Court should have granted certiorari and summarily reversed the Sixth Circuit, which had held that Blackston had a 'clearly established' constitutional right to admit recanting witnesses' written statements. Scalia found no Supreme Court precedent supporting that right and accused the Sixth Circuit of treating its own extension of existing case law as if the Supreme Court had already established it, contrary to the federal habeas statute's limits.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The dissent focused on the federal habeas statute's requirement that relief is available only when a state court's decision unreasonably applied law 'clearly established' by the Supreme Court itself, not law that lower federal courts think logically follows from Supreme Court cases.
- It reviewed the Confrontation Clause cases the Sixth Circuit relied on and found that all of them involved a defendant cross-examining a witness who was actually testifying at trial, not a right to introduce written statements from unavailable witnesses.
- The dissent noted the Supreme Court had recently said in another case that it had never held the Confrontation Clause gives a right to introduce outside evidence for impeachment purposes, and reasoned that framing the right in broad terms did not make it 'clearly established.'
- Because no Supreme Court decision clearly established a right to admit the recantations, the dissent concluded the Sixth Circuit's approval of habeas relief was itself an unreasonable extension of the habeas statute's limits, not a proper application of clearly established law.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Nevada v. Jackson (569 U.S. ----)
Dissent relies on this case's statement that no right exists to introduce extrinsic impeachment evidence under the Confrontation Clause.
Reaffirms White v. Woodall (572 U.S. ----)
Dissent cites this case for the rule that habeas relief requires courts to apply, not extend, clearly established Supreme Court precedent.