By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 12, 2011//
United States Supreme Court
Criminal
Habeas Corpus – AEDPA — Confrontation Clause
A state court did not interpret the Confrontation Clause unreasonably by permitting a witness’ testimony from a prior trial to be read into the record at the second.
“As we observed in Roberts, when a witness disappears before trial, it is always possible to think of additional steps that the prosecution might have taken to secure the witness’ presence, see 448 U. S., at 75, but the Sixth Amendment does not require the prosecution to exhaust every avenue of inquiry, no matter how unpromising. And, more to the point, the deferential standard of review set out in 28 U. S. C. §2254(d) does not permit a federal court to overturn a state court’s decision on the question of unavailability merely because the federal court identifies additional steps that might have been taken. Under AEDPA, if the state-court decision was reasonable, it cannot be disturbed.
Reversed.
Local effect: The opinion reversed a Seventh Circuit case.
Per Curiam.