- The Washington Times - Monday, December 11, 2006


Murder trial spectators were free to wear buttons with a picture of the victim in front of the jury that convicted his killer, the Supreme Court concluded unanimously yesterday.

The ruling reinstated a murder conviction in California that had been reversed by a federal appeals court.

But the justices left open the question of whether spectators’ conduct could cross the line and deprive a defendant of a fair trial.

The court ruled in favor of California prosecutors who said the buttons were a harmless expression of grief by family members at the trial of Mathew Musladin.

It was the first time the justices ruled on a case involving the conduct of courtroom spectators.

In previous cases, the court has weighed in to prevent prosecutors from clothing defendants in prison garb or shackling prisoners in a courtroom, other than for the most pressing security reasons.

Musladin had successfully challenged his conviction in the 1994 shooting death of Tom Studer, the fiance of Musladin’s estranged wife. Musladin is serving a sentence of 32 years to life in prison.

Before the trial, Musladin’s attorneys tried to preclude the family members from wearing the buttons in the courtroom. The trial judge, however, rejected their request, saying he saw “no possible prejudice to the defendant.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for five of his colleagues, said the state court decision allowing the trial to proceed with Mr. Studer’s relatives wearing a button with the victim’s photo “was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.”

The other three justices concurred with the court’s judgment but did not join Justice Thomas’ opinion.

The ruling was the latest rebuke on criminal matters to the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The appeals court had ordered a new trial for Musladin, saying the buttons “essentially argue that Studer was the innocent party and that the defendant was necessarily guilty.” The dissenting judge in the 2-1 decision said the buttons were a symbol of a family’s grief.

The case turned on a 1996 law, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, limiting the circumstances under which federal judges may grant habeas corpus petitions in state court cases.

In order for a federal judge to step in, says the law, the state court decision must be “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.

The appeals court said the state court decision was contrary to Supreme Court holdings. But Justice Thomas said, “We hold that it was not.”

Also yesterday, the court:

• Directed federal appeals courts to reconsider 17 cases involving immigrants who are facing deportation because they were convicted of relatively minor crimes. The court ruled last week that such convictions should not automatically lead to deportation.

• Ruled against the oil and gas industry in a 7-0 decision that refused to limit the number of years government can reach back to collect unpaid royalties stemming from leases on federal land.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide