90 F.4th 1199
7th Cir.2024Background
- DeShawn Harold Jewell was convicted in Wisconsin state court of robbery by use of force and bail jumping, largely based on eyewitness identification and DNA evidence.
- During jury deliberations, the trial judge answered a substantive jury question outside the presence of Jewell and his counsel (ex parte), regarding whether the numbering systems of photo identification materials were the same.
- Jewell objected to this ex parte communication after the verdict and lost on direct appeal; the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found the error was harmless.
- Jewell then sought federal habeas corpus relief, arguing the state court unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent on harmless error review.
- The district court denied habeas relief but granted a certificate of appealability, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Jewell's Argument | Boughton's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state court unreasonably applied Chapman v. California harmless error standard | The Wisconsin Court of Appeals wrongly used sufficiency of evidence, not true harmless error analysis, and failed to appreciate the prejudice of the ex parte answer. | The appellate court properly applied Chapman since the answer was factually correct and unchallenged; any error did not affect the verdict. | The court's application of Chapman was not objectively unreasonable; fairminded jurists could disagree. |
| Whether ex parte communication had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict under Brecht | The error addressed a key factual issue and may have swayed the jury in a close case. | The evidence of guilt was strong; the answer was factually uncontested and did not impact the verdict. | Jewell failed to show the error had a "substantial and injurious effect"—no grave doubt about the verdict's reliability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (error is harmless if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (federal habeas relief requires error to have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA standard is highly deferential to state courts)
- O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (explains "grave doubt" standard for harmless error review in habeas)