170 F. Supp. 3d 851
D.S.C.2016Background
- Petitioner (African-American) was convicted of murder and sentenced to death after a second penalty trial in 2000; the second sentencing jury was all-white. The first sentencing had resulted in reversal and remand for a new sentencing.
- At the 2000 sentencing the prosecutor elicited testimony and argument containing racialized imagery: a white victim’s coma “dream” of “Indians … they were black,” a prosecutor reference identifying the defendant’s prison lover as a “blonde-headed lady,” and closing remarks likening the defendant to “King Kong.” Defense counsel objected at trial but the trial and state appellate courts rejected due-process and prejudice claims.
- Post-conviction (PCR) proceedings revealed a juror later told PCR counsel he concluded the defendant killed the victim “because he was just a dumb nigger.” The PCR court found the juror’s comment did not prove bias during trial; that ruling was appealed through state courts and denied.
- Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition raising seven grounds: (1) prosecutorial injection of race at sentencing; (2) seating of a racially biased juror; (3) ineffective assistance for failing to challenge race-based decision to seek death; (4) ineffective assistance for failing to voir dire on racial bias; (5) ineffective assistance for failing to object to certain statements/instructions; (6) ineffective appellate counsel for not challenging admission of prior-assault evidence; (7) Brady/denial of access to impeachment material.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended granting relief on Ground Two only. The district court conducted de novo review and granted habeas relief on both Grounds One and Two, vacating the death sentence and ordering resentencing within 180 days, while denying relief on Grounds Three through Seven.
Issues
| Issue | Bennett's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Prosecutorial injection of race at sentencing (Ground One) | Prosecutor deliberately inserted racialized evidence/argument ("black Indians", "blonde" lover, "King Kong") before an all-white jury, denying due process | Remarks and evidence benign or non-prejudicial when viewed in context; individual incidents insufficient to show unfairness | Court: Grant habeas — prosecutor’s repeated race-based references were improper, cumulative and prejudicial; state courts unreasonably determined otherwise; due process violated; vacated death sentence |
| 2. Seating of racially biased juror (Ground Two) | Juror later admitted he decided guilt/sentencing because defendant was "a dumb nigger," proving actual bias and denial of impartial jury | PCR court found the juror’s remark reflected later feelings (2007), not bias during the 2000 trial; State contests relief | Court: Grant habeas — juror’s admission tied to his trial-week deliberations and indicates actual bias; PCR court’s factual finding was unreasonable; impartial jury right violated |
| 3. Selective prosecution / counsel ineffective for not challenging race-based death-penalty decision (Ground Three) | Solicitor sought death for racial reasons; counsel ineffective for not challenging | Statistics and comparisons do not show similarly situated defendants treated differently; claim procedurally barred and meritless | Denied — claim lacks merit; not a substantial ineffective-assistance claim |
| 4. Failure to voir dire venire on racial attitudes (Ground Four) | Counsel should have questioned venire about racial bias | Counsel strategically chose not to probe (fear of offending jurors/injecting race); no clear deficiency | Denied — PCR court reasonably credited counsel’s strategy; no Strickland prejudice shown |
| 5. Failure to object to prosecutor’s remarks/instructions (Ground Five) | Counsel ineffective for not objecting to all dehumanizing/racially loaded statements and certain jury instructions | Counsel did object to key remarks; South Carolina reviewed the record on appeal; some trial statements not reversible error; appellate review unaffected | Denied — no Strickland prejudice; state courts addressed claims on the merits; Caldwell-type error not shown |
| 6. Appellate counsel ineffective re: Pizza Hut prior-act evidence (Ground Six) | Appellate counsel should have argued Rule 403/relevance to exclude prior-assault evidence and photographs | State law permits proof of prior crimes in sentencing; South Carolina majority found evidence admissible and probative; appellate omission not outcome-determinative | Denied — Petitioner cannot show he would have prevailed on appeal absent the omitted argument |
| 7. Brady / access to impeachment material (Ground Seven) | Trial court improperly withheld detention-center guard personnel records that could impeach state witnesses | Trial court conducted in camera review and produced responsive material; sealed records contained no relevant evidence | Denied — Magistrate and district court reviewed files and found no Brady material; no reasonable probability of different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. State of N.C., 583 F.2d 701 (4th Cir. 1978) (prosecutorial prejudice can so infect trial as to deny due process)
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (courts must eradicate racial prejudice from criminal justice)
- Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (1986) (heightened scrutiny for racial prejudice in capital sentencing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference under §2254(d) and standards for federal habeas review)
- Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985) (impermissible to suggest jury’s decision will be reviewed by others in capital case)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992) (a juror’s partiality in capital sentencing requires strict scrutiny)
- Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984) (state-court factual findings must have fair support in the record)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) ("unreasonable application" standard under §2254(d))