PRESS RELEASE

In a decision announced today, the United States Supreme Court reinstated the conviction of a California man, concluding that an earlier federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which overturned his conviction was improper.  In the case of Carey v. Musladin, the lower court had determined that the murderer’s rights had been violated because three of the victim’s family members wore buttons with the victim’s photo during the trial.  All nine justices agreed that decision should be reversed.

The California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation had joined the case to argue that the Ninth Circuit ruling violated rules requiring the federal courts, reviewing a case on habeas corpus, to respect reasonable state court decisions that are not contrary to Supreme Court precedent.  Because there was no high court decision finding that the wearing of photo buttons violated a defendant’s rights, the state court decision to allow them could not be presumed unreasonable.  The Court’s decision utilized research introduced in the Foundation’s brief.

Writing for the Court, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas stated, “Given the lack of holdings from this Court regarding the potentially prejudicial effect of spectator’s courtroom conduct of the kind involved here, it cannot be said that the state court ‘unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] clearly established federal law.’ ”

“The Ninth Circuit decision overturned today is a prime example of exactly the kind of interference with state courts that Congress intended to prohibit when it passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ten years ago,” said the Foundation’s Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.

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.

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the case to argue that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling fell 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’s brief discussed these precedents from other states, and today’s opinion cited them as evidence that the California decision was reasonable.

“The message in this Supreme Court decision is clear, the law does not allow the lower federal courts to set aside state court holdings based upon no more than a disagreement with the result,” said Scheidegger.