Darrell Ewing v. Connie Horton, 914 F.3d 1027

Darrell Ewing was convicted of first-degree murder in Michigan state court after jury verdict; sentencing included mandatory life.
Two months post-verdict, Juror Byrnes filed an affidavit alleging Jurors #5 and #13 conducted internet/Facebook research and discussed extraneous gang information and a eulogy during deliberations.
Ewing moved for a new trial or, alternatively, an evidentiary (Remmer) hearing to determine actual prejudice; the state trial court denied relief, finding the extraneous information duplicative of trial evidence.
Michigan appellate courts affirmed; Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Ewing then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The district court found the state courts erred, held that Ewing was denied a Remmer hearing, and conditionally granted habeas relief by ordering a new trial unless the State retried him within 90 days.
The Sixth Circuit majority reversed the remedy: it agreed a Remmer hearing was required, held Ewing had not shown actual prejudice, and remanded instructing the district court to condition relief on the State providing an evidentiary hearing within a reasonable period (rather than ordering an immediate new trial). Judge Moore dissented, arguing the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial given potential futility of a belated hearing.

Issue	Ewing's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether juror affidavits alleging internet research required a Remmer hearing	Byrnes affidavit showed extraneous influence with potential to taint jury; due process required a hearing	State conceded a hearing was required or had no objection to an evidentiary hearing	Held: Remmer hearing required because affidavit raised a colorable claim of extraneous influence
Whether Ewing proved actual prejudice from the extraneous information	Requested new trial or at least hearing; argued prejudice likely	Argued information was duplicative of trial evidence and harmless	Held: Actual prejudice not proven on record; facts unknown without hearing
Proper habeas remedy when hearing was denied: new trial vs. remand for hearing	Argued for new trial or hearing; district court ordered new trial unless state retry within 90 days	Argued remedy should be a Remmer hearing, not immediate new trial	Held: Remedy should be remand for a Remmer hearing; district court abused discretion by conditioning release on a new trial instead of affording hearing first
Standard and discretion for habeas remedy	N/A (Ewing sought relief)	District courts have broad equitable discretion; State emphasized comity and practicability of hearing	Held: District courts should tailor relief to cure the constitutional violation; here that means ordering a hearing before granting new trial; dissent would have affirmed district court's broader equitable remedy

Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (requires an evidentiary hearing to determine the impact of extraneous influences on a juror)
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (due process does not require new trial whenever a juror is in a potentially compromising situation; hearing to determine actual bias is appropriate)
Nevers v. Killinger, 169 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 1999) (discusses requirement of hearing when extrinsic influence may have tainted jury; contrasted here as an outlier on remedy)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000) (addresses post-conviction evidentiary hearing and habeas review; remand for further proceedings where hearing denied)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (federal courts should avoid ordering state trials before constitutionally-required hearings are held)
United States v. Corrado, 227 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2000) (Remmer-hearing principles applied on appeal)
United States v. Hernden, 156 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 1998) (Remmer hearing required where colorable claim of extraneous influence exists)
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (habeas relief is equitable; courts should consider comity and federalism when fashioning remedies)