Byrd v. Trombley

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

I. Introduction

Before the Court are Respondent’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Paul J. Ko-mives’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. #40). The Magistrate Judge, ruling on Petitioner’s application for the writ of ha-beas corpus, first rejected Petitioner’s claims that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) standard of review, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), was unconstitutional. The Magistrate Judge then, after applying the AEDPA standard of review, recommended granting the application for the writ of habeas corpus. This Court agrees with both decisions.

The case at hand arises out of the conviction of Petitioner Aaron Thomas Byrd on charges of first degree sexual conduct involving his step-daughter. Petitioner, whose prior two trials on the same charges resulted in hung juries, appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court, both of which denied his appeal. His current application for the writ of habeas corpus contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his trial defense. The Magistrate Judge, reviewing the application, concluded that defense counsel was so ineffective that it was in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as the representation was (1) deficient and (2) prejudicial to the outcome of the case. The Magistrate Judge found that the prejudicial deficiency consisted of (a) the failure to object to the introduction of Petitioner’s ten-year-old forgery conviction, (b) the failure to object to the prosecution’s use of the conviction as “bad man” evidence, and (c) the failure to investigate and present an expert witness to counter the prosecution’s witnesses.

II. Standard of Review

A district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district “court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate” judge. Id. The requirement of de novo review “is a statutory recognition that Article III of the United States Constitution mandates that the judicial power of the United States be vested in judges with life tenure.” United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir.1985). Accordingly, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) to “insure[] that the district judge would be the final arbiter” of a matter referred to a magistrate. Flournoy v. Marshall, 842 F.2d 875, 878 (6th Cir.1988).

Neither party has challenged the first part of the Magistrate Judge’s report— succinctly summarizing why Petitioner’s *545 constitutional challenges to the AEDPA standard of review must be rejected — and therefore this Court will apply the standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to Petitioner’s application. The applicable standard is as follows:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

III. Analysis

Respondent objects to the granting of the writ, arguing that (1) trial counsel’s failure to object to the introduction of the forgery conviction did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the failure to object to the subsequent use of the conviction as “bad man” evidence did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) the failure to present an expert to challenge the prosecution’s expert on the physical and psychological conclusions was not ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) even if it were ineffective, the evidence does not demonstrate that the outcome would have been different.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that all three of these errors constitute evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel, and that these errors were extremely prejudicial, thus satisfying the standard laid out by Strickland. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (holding that petitioners must show that: (1) counsel’s errors were so serious that “counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment” and (2) counsel’s deficient performance resulted in “prejudice” to the petitioner).

(a) Failure to Object to the Forgery Conviction

Respondent makes two critical misrepresentations in their objection regarding the failure to object to the introduction of the forgery conviction. First, they characterize the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of whether the forgery conviction would be admissible under Mioh. R. Evid. 609(c)— which is relevant to the question of whether it was clear error to fail to challenge its admission — as somehow being an impermissible attempt to “reverse the Michigan appellate courts.” (Resp. Obj. at 8). The Magistrate Judge, however, was only pointing out that it was exceedingly likely that the forgery conviction was barred under Mioh. R. Evid. 609(c) and thus it was constitutionally ineffective counsel to fail to challenge it. He was not ruling on the Michigan courts’ interpretation of their own law, but on their interpretation of Strickland and the case law surrounding the ineffective assistance of counsel.

The next misrepresentation is that Petitioner’s counsel did not object to the introduction of the prior forgery conviction because it was the deliberate strategy of defense counsel to admit it. Respondent asserts that the defense narrative was “when Petitioner is charged with a crime and responsible for it, he admits to it.” (Resp. Obj. at 6) Every single inference available indicates that this approach was taken because the forgery conviction had already been admitted, and not because counsel was deliberately building them defense upon Petitioner’s prior truthfulness in a felony proceeding. In fact, Respon *546 dent asserts that counsel’s strategy was to pit the credibility of Petitioner against that of the testifying victim — in no way does that proffered narrative square with Respondent’s characterization of the trial strategy. For the reasons cited by the Magistrate Judge, this Court finds that the failure to challenge the introduction of the prior forgery conviction was constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.

(b)Failure to Object to the “Bad Man” Argument

Next, Respondent mischaracterizes the prosecution’s closing remarks in arguing that failure to object to those arguments did not constitute ineffective assistance. Respondent claims that the prosecution used the conviction “to contrast whether the defense could plausibly argue that the victim was clearly unworthy of trust.” (Resp. Obj. at 12). In fact, the prosecution was implying that “the jurors should consider [Petitioner’s] unseemly character when rendering their verdict.” Washington v. Hofbauer, 228 F.3d 689, 699 (6th Cir.2000). The prosecution referred specifically to the fact that he was a convicted felon, and told jurors that they should take that into account — without any reference to Petitioner’s credibility. Whether this was decisively improper is not determinative; it is clear to the Court that the failure to even mount an objection to such questionable remarks also constitutes ineffective assistance.

(c)Failure to Call an Expert Witness

Respondent suggests that Petitioner’s counsel’s failure to call an expert witness was not egregious because counsel’s cross-examination of Dr. Haugen was “thorough” and obtained “many favorable statements from the witness on behalf of Petitioner.” (Resp. Obj. at 23). Thorough cross-examination, however, does not excuse the abject failure of counsel to procure or even consult with an expert. The Court agrees with the Second Circuit’s analysis that “the failure to consult with or call a medical expert is often indicative of ineffective assistance of counsel .... particularly so where the prosecution’s case ... rests on the credibility of the alleged victim.” Gersten v. Senkowski, 426 F.3d 588, 607 (2d Cir.2005). Here, where counsel directly admits that the failure to consult an expert was not a deliberate decision of trial strategy, and where no DNA evidence or direct eyewitness testimony is involved, the oversight is, in fact, “indicative of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Gersten, 426 F.3d at 607. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge on this point, as well.

(d)Prejudice

As Respondent repeatedly notes, the case turned on the credibility of Petitioner, as weighed against the credibility of the victim. Respondent, so keen to advance this theory in justifying the prosecution’s use of the prior conviction in attacking Petitioner’s credibility, abandons this theory in challenging the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that counsel’s errors affected the outcome of the trial. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge — this case relied directly upon the credibility of Petitioner, and these egregious failings in counsel’s performance led directly to “prejudice” against Petitioner. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

IY. Conclusion

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the decision of the Michigan state courts represents a decision “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report & Recommendation in its entirety, GRANTS Petitioner’s application for the writ of habeas corpus, and ORDERS the State of Michigan to either *547 retry Petitioner within 120 days or release him'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Table of Contents

I. RECOMMENDATION.547

II. REPORT.547

A. Procedural History.547

B. Factual Background Underlying Petitioner’s Conviction.548

C. Standard of Review.549

1. The AEDPA Standard.549

2. Constitutionality of the AEDPA.550

a. Separation of Powers.551

b. Supremacy Clause .552

c. Advisory Opinions.552

d. Due Process.553

e. Suspension Clause.553

D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.554

1. Clearly Established Law.555

2. Analysis.555

a. Deficient Performance.555

b. Prejudice.559

E. Conclusion. 561

III. NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS.561

I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should grant petitioner’s application for the writ of habeas corpus.

II. REPORT:

A. Procedural History

1. Petitioner Aaron Thomas Byrd is a state prisoner, currently confined at the Saginaw Correctional Facility in Freeland, Michigan.

2. On November 8, 2002, petitioner was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct involving a victim under 13 years of age, MiCH. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(l)(a), following a jury trial in the Calhoun County Circuit Court. The trial resulting in petitioner’s conviction was the third trial on the charges, the first two trials having ended in hung juries. On December 5, 2002, he was sentenced to a term of 10-25 years’ imprisonment.

3.Petitioner filed an appeal of right in the Michigan Court of Appeals, as well as a motion for new trial in the trial court alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied petitioner’s motion for a new trial. In his appeal of right petitioner raised, through counsel the following claims:

I. APPELLANT BYRD WAS DENIED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS WHEN HE WAS IMPEACHED WITH A STALE PRIOR CONVICTION IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF MRE 609(C) AND WHERE THAT CONVICTION WAS EMPHASIZED BY THE PROSECUTION TO CONVICT HIM ON A “BAD MAN” THEORY.

A. SINCE TEN YEARS HAD PASSED FROM CONFINE *548 MENT, APPELLANT BYRD’S FORGERY CONVICTION WAS INADMISSIBLE UNDER MRE 609(C).

B. EVEN IF APPELLANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION FOR FORGERY WAS ADMISSIBLE FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES, THE PROSECUTOR ERRED IN GOING BEYOND THE PROPER USAGE AND ATTEMPTING TO SHOW THAT THE PRIOR CONVICTION INDICATED APPELLANT WAS A “BAD MAN” AND IN ENTERING THE DETAILS REGARDING APPELLANT’S INCARCERATION.

II. APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS (U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI’ CONST 1963, ART 1, SEC. 20) WHERE HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY, WITH NO STRATEGIC PURPOSE, MADE SEVERAL OUTCOME-DETERMINATIVE ERRORS.

III. APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS WHEN THE PROSECUTOR ENGAGED IN SEVERE AND REPEATED OUTCOME-DETERMINATIVE MISCONDUCT.

IV. APPELLANT BYRD’S DUE PROCESS CLAUSE RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE AND HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WERE VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS PREVENTED FROM PRESENTING CRITICAL EVIDENCE OF BIAS ON THE PART OF THE COMPLAINANT.

The court of appeals found no merit to petitioner’s claims, and affirmed his conviction and sentence. See People v. Byrd, No. 245624, 2004 WL 1801036 (Mich.Ct.App. Aug.12, 2004) (per curiam).

4. Petitioner, through counsel, sought leave to appeal these four issues to the Michigan Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied petitioner’s application for leave to appeal in a standard order. See People v. Byrd, 472 Mich. 907, 696 N.W.2d 710 (2005).

5. Petitioner, through counsel, filed the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus on December 22, 2005. As grounds for the writ of habeas corpus, he raises the second, third, and fourth claims raised in the state courts. He also argues that the standard of review governing his habeas application, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the AEDPA, is unconstitutional.

6. Respondent filed his answer on July 7, 2006. He contends that petitioner’s prosecutorial misconduct claims are barred by petitioner’s procedural default, and that his remaining claims are without merit.

7. Petitioner filed a reply to respondent’s answer on August 10, 2006.

B. Factual Background Underlying Petitioner’s Conviction

Petitioner was tried three times on the charges for which he was ultimately convicted. The first two trials ended in hung juries. The evidence presented at the third trial was succinctly summarized by the Michigan Court of Appeals on petitioner’s direct appeal:

The victim, age ten at the time of trial, lived with her family (including defendant who was her step-father) during the first half of 1999. The victim testified that she usually showered in the mornings, and would wrap a towel around herself afterward. According to *549 the victim, defendant would occasionally go into the shower with her.[FN2] On one occasion, the victim went into her mother’s bedroom with defendant, who was on the bed wearing only a robe, and defendant touched the victim in her “private.” Defendant had told the victim to “just relax,” and then he “stuck” his “front private” inside her front “private part.”

FN2. Defendant worked for a tow-truck company that he owned and operated, and was able to be at home during the mornings to prepare the children, including the victim, for school.

Defendant testified on his own behalf, and denied the allegations. Defendant admitted that he sometimes rinsed the victim’s hair while she was showering and her mother was not there, but denied showering with her. Following the allegations, defendant called the doctor for an appointment for the victim, and informed the doctor’s office that the victim had a yellow discharge and that someone had touched her in her private parts. Upon the recommendation to report the allegations, defendant and the victim’s mother reported the allegations. Defendant believed that the victim made the allegations against him because he spanked her for lying. Defendant also testified that he believed the victim’s injury could have been caused by a bicycle accident. According to defendant, the victim apologized to him after she made the allegations.

The victim was initially examined by Sherry Strieker, a physician’s assistant, pursuant to the chief complaint of vaginal burning and itching, yellow discharge, and strong-smelling urine. Strieker had been informed that there was possible sexual abuse. Strieker indicated that the victim’s labia were red and that there were lesions, which was consistent with the chief complaint. The victim was later examined by Dr. Steven Guertin, who found an injury described as a very deep, v-shaped notch in the victim’s hymen. Dr. Guertin determined the injury was approximately one or two weeks old to one-year old. Dr. Guertin explained that the victim’s injury was rare for a seven-year-old female. Dr. Guertin acknowledged that there were possible accidental causes, but that the most common cause of that type of injury was sexual or genital-to-genital contact (i.e., placing the penis in that particular area).

Byrd, 2004 WL 1801036, at *1, slip op. at 1-2.

C. Standard of Review

1. The AEDPA Standard

Because petitioner’s application was filed after April 24, 1996, his petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiter-rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326-27, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Amongst other amendments, the AEDPA amended the substantive standards for granting ha-beas relief by providing:

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State cdurt shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination *550 of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

“[T]he ‘contrary to’ and ‘unreasonable application’ clauses [have] independent meaning.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); see also, Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002). “A state court’s decision is ‘contrary to’ ... clearly established law if it ‘applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court cases]’ or if it ‘confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from [this] precedent.’ ” Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 15-16, 124 S.Ct. 7, 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003) (per curiam) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495); see also, Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002); Bell, 535 U.S. at 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843. “[T]he ‘unreasonable application’ prong of § 2254(d) (1) permits a federal habeas court to ‘grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts’ of petitioner’s case.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495); see also, Bell, 535 U.S. at 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843. However, “[i]n order for a federal court to find a state court’s application of [Supreme Court] precedent ‘unreasonable,’ the state court’s decision must have been more than incorrect or erroneous. The state court’s application must have been ‘objectively unreasonable.’ ” Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 520-21, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (citations omitted); see also, Williams, 529 U.S. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495.

By its terms, § 2254(d)(1) limits a federal habeas court’s review to a determination of whether the state court’s decision comports with “clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.” Thus, “ § 2254(d)(1) restricts the source of clearly established law to [the Supreme] Court’s jurisprudence.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495. Further, the “phrase ‘refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.’ In other words, ‘clearly established Federal lawf under § 2254(d)(1) is the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (citations omitted) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495).

Although “clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court” is the benchmark for habeas review of a state court decision, the standard set forth in § 2254(d) “does not require citation of [Supreme Court] cases — -indeed, it does not even require awareness of [Supreme Court] cases, so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them.” Early, 537 U.S. at 8, 123 S.Ct. 362; see also, Mitchell, 540 U.S. at 16, 124 S.Ct. 7. Further, although the requirements of “clearly established law” are to be determined solely by the holdings of the Supreme Court, the decisions of lower federal courts are useful in assessing the reasonableness of the state court’s resolution of an issue. See Williams v. Bowersox, 340 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir.2003); Phoenix v. Matesanz, 233 F.3d 77, 83 n. 3 (1st Cir.2000); Dickens v. Jones, 203 F.Supp.2d 354, 359 (E.D.Mich.2002) (Tarnow, J.).

2. Constitutionality of the AEDPA

Notwithstanding the above standard of review, petitioner contends that he is enti- *551 tied to de novo review of his federal constitutional claims because § 2254(d)(1), as amended by the AEDPA, is unconstitutional. Specifically, petitioner contends that the AEDPA violates: (1) the separation of powers; (2) the Supremacy Clause; (3) the Article III case or controversy requirement by mandating the issuance of advisory opinions; (4) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (5) the Suspension Clause of Art. I, § 9. The Court should conclude that these claims are without merit, and that the AEDPA standard of review therefore governs petitioner’s claims.

a. Separation of Poivers

Noting that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), petitioner argues that the amended § 2254(d)(1) violates the separation of powers by mandating the law to be applied by federal courts, removing their power to adjudicate constitutional issues. This argument was soundly rejected by the Fourth Circuit, which explained:

In amending section 2254(d)(1), Congress has simply adopted a choice of law rule that prospectively governs classes of habeas eases; it has not subjected final judgments to revision, nor has it dictated the judiciary’s interpretation of governing law and mandated a particular result in any pending case. And amended section 2254(d) does not limit any inferior federal court’s independent interpretive authority to determine the meaning of federal law in any Article III case or controversy. Under the AED-PA, we are free, if we choose, to decide whether a habeas petitioner’s conviction and sentence violate any constitutional rights. Section 2254(d) only places an additional restriction upon the scope of the habeas remedy in certain circumstances. Lindh, 96 F.3d at 872 (“[rjegu-lating relief is a far cry from limiting the interpretive power of the courts, however, and Congress has ample power to adjust the circumstances under which the remedy of the writ of habeas corpus is deployed.”). As the Seventh Circuit pointed out in Lindh in great detail, such a limitation upon the scope of a remedy is entirely ordinary and unexceptionable, even when the remedy is one for constitutional rights. See Lindh, 96 F.3d at 870-73; United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good faith exception to Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (independent discovery doctrine); Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (Fourth Amendment claims that were capable of full and fair litigation in state court are not generally cognizable in federal habe-as review); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (new rules not made retroactive are not cognizable on federal habeas review); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (qualified immunity to damages actions claiming official action violated constitutional liberties). Moreover, even if section 2254(d) does limit the interpretive power of the lower federal courts in some sense, that limitation is tantamount to other such choice of law limitations which are widely accepted and have never been thought to raise Article III problems. See Lindh at 870-73 (discussing non-constitutional contexts-such as res judicata, Erie, and federal court certification of state law issues-where federal courts are often bound by another tribunal’s interpretation of law).

Green v. French, 143 F.3d 865, 874-75 (4th Cir.1998) (parallel citations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Williams v. *552 Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

Or, as more succinctly stated by the Ninth Circuit, “[s]eetion 2254(d) merely limits the source of clearly established law that the Article III court may consider, and that limitation served to govern prospectively class of habeas cases rather than offend the court’s authority to interpret the governing law and to determine the outcome in any pending case.” Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir.2000); see also, Evans v. Thompson, 518 F.3d 1, 4-10 (1st Cir.2008). For these reasons, the Court should reject petitioner’s claim that the AEDPA standard of review violates the separation of powers by encroaching on the Court’s exercise of the judicial power.

b. Supremacy Clause

Petitioner next argues that the AEDPA standard violates the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const, art. VI, § 2. This claim is without merit. Nothing in the AEDPA subjugates the Constitution to state law. As the Supreme Court has often noted, the state courts, as co-equal guardians of federal constitutional rights, are perfectly capable of passing on federal constitutional questions. See, e.g., Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982); Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 n. 35, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976); Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 341-44, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816). And, under the Supremacy Clause, state courts are obligated to enforce the Constitution above state law to the contrary. See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 367-69, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990); Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 340-41, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816). Nothing in the AEDPA changes this rule of law. The AEDPA does, to be sure, require that federal courts give deference to the federal constitutional decisions of the state courts. This, however, does not offend the Supremacy Clause, which is “concerned with promoting the supremacy of federal law, not federal courts.” Nashoba Communications Ltd. Partnership No. 7 v. Town of Danvers, 893 F.2d 435, 440 (1st Cir.1990). In short, the AEDPA standard of review does not violate the Supremacy Clause because that Clause “is concerned about a conflict between state and federal law, not between state and federal judges. Indeed, to say, as the Clause does, that federal law shall be ‘Supreme ... any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding’ is to say nothing at all about the respective roles of the state and federal courts.” Mueller v. Angelone, 181 F.3d 557, 572 (4th Cir.1999) (upholding § 2254(d) (1) against Supremacy Clause challenge); see also, Evans, 518 F.3d at 8 n. 3. Accordingly, the Court should conclude that § 2254(d) (1) does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

c. Advisory Opinions

Petitioner next contends that § 2254(d)(1) violates Article III of the Constitution by requiring federal courts to issue advisory opinions. Petitioner argues: “Under the statute, a federal court’s conclusion that a state court wrongly (but not unreasonably) applied the Constitution has no more weight than a mere advisory opinion; it binds nobody and affords relief to nobody. As such, it is a classic advisory opinion that is squarely precluded under Article III of the Constitution.” Pet’r’s Br., at 74-75. Even assuming that this is true, however, nothing in the AEDPA requires a federal court to determine whether a state court wrongly, as opposed to unreasonably, applied the Constitution. A federal court may, and the courts often do, dispose of a habeas case merely by assessing the reasonableness of the state determination, without ever rendering an opinion on the ultimate correctness of the state *553 court decision. See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71,