UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ LOUIS CHANDLER, │ Petitioner-Appellant, │ > No. 23-1270 │ v. │ │ MIKE BROWN, Warden, │ Respondent-Appellee. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette. No. 2:19-cv-00263—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.

Argued: April 30, 2024

Decided and Filed: January 24, 2025

Before: WHITE, STRANCH, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Matthew A. Monahan, STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Jared D. Schultz, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Matthew A. Monahan, STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Jared D. Schultz, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner-Appellant Louis Chandler, a Michigan prisoner, is serving concurrent terms of twenty-five to seventy-five years in prison for two convictions of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(2)(b). No. 23-1270 Chandler v. Brown Page 2

After exhausting his state-court appeals, Chandler filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that the trial court infringed his right to present a complete defense. The district court denied the petition, and Chandler appeals. We REVERSE, conditionally GRANT Chandler’s habeas corpus petition, and REMAND to the district court.

I. Background

A. Factual History

For twelve years, Chandler and his wife, Darlene Chandler (“Darlene”), cared for more than twenty foster children without incident. In 2010, the Chandlers decided to foster A.C., an eight-year-old girl.1 Because a prior Child Protective Services (“CPS”) report had concluded that A.C. had a “history of false allegations,” R. 9-10, PID 728, the foster-care agency warned the Chandlers to “watch” A.C. closely, R. 9-5, PID 382.

Roughly three months after the initial foster placement, the Chandlers informed A.C. that they intended to adopt her. Days later, A.C. told Darlene that Chandler had touched her inappropriately. Darlene was confused because, shortly after reporting this incident to Darlene, A.C. “laugh[ed] around the room . . . and climbed on [Chandler’s] lap.” R. 9-5, PID 380. Still, Darlene called the adoption agency to report A.C.’s allegations, and Chandler voluntarily left the home to give law enforcement, CPS, and the foster-care agency time to investigate.

A.C. told investigators that Chandler sexually abused her every day, and sometimes multiple times per day, both inside the home and at a local movie theater.2 The foster-care agency concluded that it had serious doubts regarding A.C.’s assertions, which were compounded by A.C.’s history of false allegations. The prosecutor also declined