LINDA STERMER v. MILLICENT WARREN, WARDEN - Articles

All Content

LINDA STERMER v. MILLICENT WARREN, WARDEN

Posted by: Karen Belcher on May 15, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Linus Banghart-Linn, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Wolfgang Mueller, MUELLER LAW FIRM, Novi, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Linus Banghart-Linn, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Debra K. Hampton, HAMPTON LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Edmond, Oklahoma, for Appellee.

Judge(s): MOORE, CLAY, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Linda Stermer was convicted of felony murder in the course of committing an arson and was sentenced to life in prison. The State of Michigan charged her with killing her husband by setting both him and their house on fire. At trial, the state used a fire expert to support its claim of arson, but Stermer’s counsel never retained or consulted with an expert to rebut this evidence. In his closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly branded Stermer a liar, misrepresented her testimony, and disparaged her while bolstering other witnesses. Stermer’s counsel did not object.

After a direct appeal and a motion for post-conviction relief in state court, Stermer filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court, over the state’s objection, held an evidentiary hearing. After that hearing, the court granted Stermer’s petition based on her claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. The state appealed.

While the district court improperly held an evidentiary hearing and applied an incorrect standard of review to Stermer’s petition, that does not affect this Court’s de novo review of her claims. Even with the significant deference afforded to state court decisions under habeas review, Stermer is entitled to relief on her prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of a conditional writ of habeas corpus, meaning that Stermer is entitled to a new trial.

Attachments: