Johnny Bennett v. Bryan Stirling, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20789

Johnny Bennett, a Black defendant, convicted of murder and related crimes; sentenced to death after a second sentencing (2000) before an all-white jury; first penalty trial (1995) had a mixed-race jury and resulted in reversal and remand.
Prosecutor Donald Myers used racially charged imagery at the second sentencing: called Bennett “King Kong,” “caveman,” “monster,” etc.; elicited testimony about a dream of “black Indians” and highlighted Bennett’s sexual relationship with a blonde (implying an interracial relationship).
Defense objected during trial and moved for mistrial; trial court denied relief and did not give curative instructions; South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence.
Bennett later uncovered a juror statement expressing overt racial animus; state PCR court denied relief; state supreme court denied review.
Federal habeas petition (28 U.S.C. § 2254) granted by the district court on prosecutorial misconduct and juror-bias theories; district court vacated death sentence and ordered resentencing.
Fourth Circuit affirmed habeas relief, holding the prosecutor’s repeated, race-coded appeals infected the sentencing with unfairness in violation of due process under clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s closing and elicited testimony constituted impermissible appeals to racial prejudice that violated due process under Darden	Myers’ race-based references (King Kong, caveman, black Indians, blonde-headed lady) were intentional racial appeals that prevented a fair individualized capital sentencing	Remarks described size/strength and were race-neutral or invited responses; prosecutor had broad latitude; state courts reasonably found no improper racial appeal	Held for Bennett: remarks were clear, focused racial appeals that so infected the sentencing with unfairness that due process was violated; habeas relief affirmed
Whether seating of a juror expressing racial bias required relief	Juror statement (“Because he was just a dumb nigger”) shows racial bias that undermines impartial jury and warrants new sentencing	State PCR court found juror was not biased at sentencing; respondents contested timeliness/weight of juror interview	Court did not need to decide because prosecutor’s misconduct ruling made consideration unnecessary (district court had also found juror-bias unreasonable)

Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial misconduct violates due process if it so infects trial with unfairness as to deny a fair proceeding)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (courts should not lightly infer prosecutor intended most damaging meaning from ambiguous remarks)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutor may "strike hard blows" but not "strike foul ones")
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985) (heightened scrutiny in capital cases; improper argument can impair individualized sentencing)
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (Constitution prohibits racially biased prosecutorial arguments)
Young v. United States, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) (remarks must be evaluated in context of whole record)
Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (1986) (heightened concern where racial prejudice may infect capital sentencing)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference; state decisions stand unless unreasonable)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (more general federal rules allow state courts greater leeway under AEDPA)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (AEDPA does not preclude habeas relief for extreme malfunctions in state system)