Justices to Rule on Photos at Trial

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether a California murderer’s right to a fair trial was denied when members of the victim’s family wore buttons in court with a photo of the slain man. It is the latest instance of the high court’s reconsidering a ruling from the liberal-leaning U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a criminal case.

Separately, the high court reversed a ruling by the 9th Circuit in an asylum case, holding that an immigration court judge should consider the issue of whether a white South African family was entitled to stay in the United States because they feared persecution in their homeland.

In the murder case, the appeals court, in a 2-1 decision, last year overturned the conviction of Mathew Musladin of San Jose for the 1994 shooting of his ex-wife’s fiance, Tom Studer. Judge Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles said the buttons with the victim’s photo “conveyed the message that the defendant was guilty” and might have prejudiced the jury. Judge Marsha S. Berzon of San Francisco agreed with him.

The trial judge had said he saw no problem with the family members wearing buttons in court. They were probably seen by jurors as a sign of “the normal grief occasioned by the loss of a family member,” another state judge said. The California courts and a federal judge upheld Musladin’s conviction before his case reached the 9th Circuit.

After their separation in 1992, Musladin had threatened to kill his former wife, Pamela, and the two had repeated confrontations over who would have custody of their son. In 1994, Pamela was engaged to marry Studer. On an afternoon in May of that year, Musladin came to her house in San Jose to pick up their son for a visit. In the driveway, he angrily shoved Pamela to the ground.

When her brother and Studer came to her aid, Musladin shot Studer, first in the shoulder and then in the head. He maintained the shooting was in self-defense.

During the trial, three family members wore buttons with 2- to 4-inch photos of Studer. The jury convicted Musladin of first-degree murder and he was sentenced to 32 years in prison.

Congress in 1996 made it harder for federal judges to overturn state criminal convictions. It said U.S. judges should not free state inmates unless their convictions arose from “an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law,” as set by the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, the 9th Circuit has continued to overturn state convictions with regularity.

Seven judges on the 9th Circuit filed a dissent, saying the full appeals court should reconsider the decision set by Reinhardt and Berzon.

California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer appealed to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to reverse the ruling.

On Monday, the court issued an order granting the appeal and saying it would hear the case in the fall.

In the asylum case, the law permits the government to protect foreigners who have a “well-founded fear of persecution” at home because of their race, religion, nationality, public opinions or “membership in a particular social group,” but it was not clear whether a family constituted a “particular social group.” The justices, agreeing with the Bush administration, said membership in a family might entitle people to seek asylum.

But they also said a decision should be made in the first instance by U.S. immigration authorities, not federal judges.

Michelle Thomas, her husband and their two children came to Los Angeles in 1997 and later applied for asylum.

They said her father-in-law, known as “Boss Ronnie,” was reputed to be a racist who had mistreated black employees in South Africa. Before leaving their homeland, they said, they had been subjected to threats and vandalism by people who had worked for the father-in-law.

In a three-page opinion, the court sent her case back to immigration authorities to examine her claim and to decide whether the family faced a “well-founded fear of persecution” at home.