The United States Supreme Court will review a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which overturned a murder conviction because three family members wore buttons with the victim’s photo during the trial. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has joined the case to encourage a decision to reverse the lower court.
“Ten years ago, Congress enacted limits on federal court authority to prevent rulings like this one. Every other court which has considered if photo buttons prejudice a jury against the accused has determined that they do not. Once again, the Ninth Circuit has crossed the line in order to benefit a convicted murderer,” said Kent Scheidegger, the Foundation’s Legal Director.
The case of Carey v. Musladin involves the 1995 conviction of Mathew Musladin for the murder of Thomas Studer a year earlier. According to evidence introduced at trial, Musladin committed the murder on May 13, 1994, during a violent confrontation with his estranged wife Pamela. Earlier that day, Musladin was telephoned by the District Attorney’s office regarding his refusal to pay child support for his 3-year-old son, who was in his wife’s custody. Armed with a loaded .45 caliber pistol, Musladin arrived early at his wife’s residence in San Jose to pick up the child for his scheduled visitation. At that time, her fiancé Thomas Studer, and her brother, Michael Albaugh were in the house.
After Musladin put his son in his car he told his wife, “I got a call from the district attorney this morning and that’s the last straw.” He then threatened to kill her if she would not give him full custody of the child. When she begged him not to do this, he pushed her onto the driveway. After Albaugh and Studer came outside to help Pamela, Musladin went to his car and retrieved his gun.
Seeing the gun, Pamela, Albaugh and Studer ran for the garage. Musladin fired at Studer, hitting him in the shoulder. As Studer attempted to crawl to safety, Musladin walked over and shot him in the head, killing him instantly. Albaugh ran into the house and dialed 911. Hearing Musladin enter the house, Albaugh locked himself in the bathroom. Musladin kicked in the bathroom door and threatened him with his gun, then abruptly left. He was pulled over and arrested a short time later. En route to the police station he kept saying, “I didn’t mean to do it. I’m sorry.”
As the trial was beginning, at least three members of Studer’s family, wearing buttons with his photograph on them, took seats in the courtroom. Seeing this, Musladin’s defense attorney asked the judge to require that the buttons be removed. The judge refused, noting that the buttons had no words and only a photograph and that the jury had been instructed not to be swayed by passion or prejudice.
Musladin testified that he killed Studer in self-defense, claiming that he had feared for his life. In addition to testimony and forensic evidence identifying Musladin as the murderer, the prosecution introduced evidence of his prior violent confrontations with his wife, which included threats to kill her and shoot Studer. The jury found him guilty of first-degree murder and he was sentenced to 32 years to life in prison.
Among the claims challenging his conviction on appeal, Musladin argued that the judge’s decision to allow the victim’s family to wear photo buttons during the trial was unconstitutional and may have prejudiced the jurors against him. This claim was rejected by the state Court of Appeal and the federal District Court. In an October 2005 ruling by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a divided panel of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the state court decision unreasonable and overturned Musladin’s conviction. Last April, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the state’s appeal of that ruling.
CJLF has submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in this case to argue that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling falls outside the decisions of virtually every other court which has reviewed a similar claim. No court, under any circumstances, has found that buttons or ribbons that merely indicate remembrance of a deceased victim, with no implication of the defendant’s guilt, were unconstitutionally prejudicial. A provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 requires the lower federal courts to respect reasonable state court decisions. The Foundation is seeking a Supreme Court decision clearly stating that a state court decision supported by a substantial number of similar holdings by other state courts cannot be deemed unreasonable by a federal district judge or circuit court.
CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger is available for comment at (916) 446-0345.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation helped win seven United States Supreme Court decisions favoring law enforcement and victims’ rights during the Supreme Court’s 2005/2006 term. The Foundation’s brief in this case is available on the Internet at:
http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/Musladin.pdf
