Schmidt v. Jaime

Background

Devin Lee James Schmidt filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to grant habeas relief from his California conviction for arson of an inhabited structure. A jury found him guilty on January 19, 2017, after an earlier trial ended in a mistrial. The state trial court sentenced him to five years in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court later summarily denied Schmidt’s state habeas petition.

Schmidt had previously filed a federal habeas petition, but that petition was dismissed without prejudice because he had not properly presented his federal claims to the state courts. He then presented the claims in a state habeas petition before filing the current federal petition. The current petition raised two claims: ineffective assistance of counsel and improper exclusion of evidence concerning a prosecution eyewitness’s criminal record.

Claim 1: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Schmidt claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate possible alibi witnesses who might have placed him elsewhere when the fire began. He referred to possible witnesses such as mall security personnel or a neighbor’s son but did not identify them by name or provide declarations describing what they would have testified to.

The court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington: a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. Because the California Supreme Court had denied the claim without explanation, the federal court independently reviewed the record under the deferential standard required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

The court concluded that the state supreme court could reasonably have found counsel’s decision to be a trial strategy rather than unconstitutional performance. Counsel chose to argue that the police and other investigators had failed to investigate the case adequately, including by not obtaining security-camera recordings. The court also emphasized that Schmidt did not provide evidence showing that the unidentified witnesses existed, were available, or would have offered favorable testimony. In addition, the prosecution presented corroborating evidence, including Schmidt’s DNA on a gas can and eyewitness testimony placing him at the scene. The court held that the state supreme court’s rejection of this claim was not objectively unreasonable and denied relief on the claim.

Claim 2: Exclusion of the Eyewitness’s Criminal Record

The prosecution eyewitness, Mary Purify-Skillman, testified about seeing Schmidt near the home before and after the fire. Schmidt’s counsel sought to question her about prior arrests and convictions, including offenses involving dishonesty. The trial court excluded that evidence under California Evidence Code § 352, finding that its probative value was outweighed by prejudice and other concerns because the convictions and arrests were approximately 17 or 18 years old.

The federal court considered whether excluding the evidence violated Schmidt’s rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause or his right to present a defense. The court explained that the Confrontation Clause guarantees an effective opportunity to cross-examine a witness but permits reasonable limits based on concerns such as prejudice, confusion, repetition, or marginal relevance.

The court found that Schmidt had a substantial opportunity to cross-examine Purify-Skillman about matters relevant to her current credibility. It concluded that there was no substantial likelihood that allowing questioning about the old convictions and arrests would have changed the jury’s view of her credibility. The court also found that the prosecution’s evidence of guilt was strong, citing Schmidt’s conduct with the stove, his DNA on the gas can, and inconsistent accounts of how he injured his hands. The court held that any error did not have a substantial and harmful effect on the verdict and denied this claim.

Disposition

The court denied all claims in Schmidt’s petition. It also denied a certificate of appealability because it found that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the denial was wrong. The court stated that Schmidt may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions, and closed the file.