Carey v. Musladin

Musladin's initial writ of habeas corpus was based on his assertion that the victim's family's behavior at trial served to prejudice the jury. During the initial trial, the victim's family appeared in the spectator's gallery wearing buttons imprinted with the victim's picture. Musladin objected to the buttons, but the trial court did not prevent the family from wearing them. The California Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, citing the Supreme Court decision in Holbrook v. Flynn. The Federal district court denied the habeas petition; however, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed and remanded, citing an unreasonable application of federal law.

The Supreme Court's decision clarified a distinction between state and private acts. State acts, such as forcing the defendant to appear in prison garb, as in Williams v. Taylor clearly can be prejudicial to the defendant. While the court has made no formal ruling on spectator behavior at trials, this decision does clearly limit the implications of prior decisions to state acts at trial as opposed to private conduct. Given that absence of applicable court hearings, the application of Holbrook v. Flynn to the case by the California Court of Appeal stands, as does Musladin's conviction for the murder. In terms of widespread implication, this decision will allow states to choose their own standards for courtroom conduct and spectator behavior. While prejudicial conduct is clearly unconstitutional when applied to state standards and behaviors, individual states will have to make their own judgments with regard to spectators. All judicial opinions concurred on the final decision in Carey v. Musladin.

Click here to learn more about Debra Wabnik of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg