Jimmie Gordon v. Blaine Lafler, 710 F. App'x 654

Background

In 2004 Jimmie Gordon shot and killed Francois Todd after a confrontation outside Gordon’s home; a jury convicted Gordon of first-degree murder, felonious assault, and felony firearm and sentenced him to life plus additional terms.
On direct appeal state courts affirmed; Gordon later pursued state post-conviction relief claiming the trial judge exhibited unconstitutional bias against defense counsel and that counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a new trial on that basis; state courts denied relief.
Gordon sought federal habeas relief arguing (1) Due Process violation from judicial bias (appearance or actual bias) and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move for a new trial based on the alleged bias.
The district court denied habeas relief, finding the record showed routine trial management and some justified rebukes of defense counsel rather than unconstitutional bias; it granted a COA as to the judicial-bias claim and the ineffective-assistance claim.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed applicability of AEDPA deference, whether the state court applied the correct legal standard (appearance v. actual bias), and whether the judge’s conduct amounted to deep-seated favoritism or antagonism; it also reviewed the ineffective-assistance claim de novo because the state court overlooked it.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed: the state court did not apply a contrary Supreme Court standard, AEDPA deference applied, the judge’s remarks fell short of constitutional bias under controlling precedent, and counsel’s failure to move for a new trial was not prejudicial because the bias claim lacked merit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gordon procedurally defaulted his judicial-bias claim	Gordon contends he did not procedurally default because the state court alternatively reached the merits	State argues citation of MCR 6.508(D)(3) shows procedural default	No default: state court did not actually enforce the procedural bar, so claim preserved
Whether AEDPA deference applies or review is de novo because state court required actual bias	Gordon argues Supreme Court law (Caperton, Rippo) permits appearance-of-bias claims, so state court used wrong standard	State contends appearance-of-bias is not clearly established for these facts and review should be under AEDPA	AEDPA applies: state court’s standard was not contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent at the time
Whether the trial judge’s conduct amounted to unconstitutional judicial bias	Gordon: judge’s repeated interruptions, sarcastic remarks, contempt holding and rebukes created antagonism making fair judgment impossible	State: judge’s interventions were proper courtroom management in response to overly combative counsel; record includes rulings favorable to defense	Held: judge’s conduct, though sometimes intemperate, did not rise to the Liteky standard of deep-seated favoritism or antagonism; no Due Process violation
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a new trial based on judicial bias	Gordon: counsel had no reasonable basis to decline a new-trial motion and performance was deficient	State: even if counsel erred, the underlying bias claim was meritless so no prejudice	Held: de novo review; ineffective-assistance claim fails because no prejudice—the judicial-bias claim lacks merit

Key Cases Cited

Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (discussion of "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" under AEDPA)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (framework for AEDPA review and when state decisions are "contrary to" Supreme Court precedent)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state court rulings on habeas and summary rulings treated as merits adjudications)
Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (distinction between unreasonable and incorrect application of federal law)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (standard that judicial rulings almost never constitute bias; only deep‑seated favoritism or antagonism qualifies)
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (appearance-of-bias analysis in extreme recusal circumstances)
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (judge may be firm without personal animosity; no constitutional bias found)
Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 (judge’s role in governing trial conduct)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (Due Process requires impartial adjudicator)
Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (trial before impartial judge is fundamental and error is not harmless)