Konolus Smith v. Garry Swarthout
742 F.3d 885
9th Cir.2014Background
- Smith was tried in California on four counts (attempted murder, false imprisonment with violence, corporal injury to a spouse, and criminal threats) with a great-bodily-injury enhancement alleged; jury returned verdicts after a six-day trial.
- Juror No. 6, a retired NYPD lieutenant, failed initially to disclose during voir dire that his daughter lived near the defendant and that he had read (or might have read) news about a prior incident involving Smith; he later said any prior information would not affect his impartiality.
- During deliberations Juror No. 6 admitted (and other jurors reported) he had inspected medicine labels and said he had researched medications online and discussed that extrinsic information with other jurors.
- The jury foreperson reported the jury had reached verdicts on Counts III (corporal injury) and IV (criminal threats) before Juror No. 6’s disclosure; the court accepted guilty verdicts on those counts, declared a mistrial as to Counts I and II, and dismissed the enhancement for Count III.
- On post-trial polling Juror No. 1 initially indicated confusion about his vote (apparently conflating the substantive counts with the special enhancement), then affirmed the guilty verdicts for Counts III and IV.
- Smith sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting juror-bias nondisclosure, juror misconduct/extrinsic evidence, lack of unanimity, and judicial coercion; the district court denied relief and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror nondisclosure/bias (voir dire) | Juror No. 6 willfully concealed material relationships and prior knowledge; this mandated discharge for cause under McDonough | Juror No. 6’s omissions were unintentional and he credibly professed ability to be impartial; trial court’s credibility finding entitled to deference | Court held state court’s finding of no intentional concealment and impartiality was not unreasonable under AEDPA; no relief granted |
| Juror misconduct / extrinsic evidence | Juror No. 6’s inspection of medicine labels and internet research injected extraneous evidence that tainted verdicts | Jury had already reached the guilty verdicts on Counts III and IV before misconduct; harmless-error/Brecht analysis applies | Court held extrinsic evidence did not have substantial and injurious effect on the Counts III/IV verdicts; no habeas relief |
| Unanimity / polling irregularity | Juror No. 1’s initial statement that he did not vote guilty shows non-unanimous verdicts | Juror No. 1 was confused about inclusion of the special enhancement; after clarification he affirmed guilty votes for Counts III and IV | Court accepted state appellate finding that the verdicts on Counts III and IV were unanimous; no relief |
| Judicial coercion | Trial judge’s comment that a juror would be discharged and deliberations restarted coerced the jury in violation of due process | Judge did not actually discharge juror or restart deliberations; comments related only to the unresolved enhancement; Jenkins-based supervisory argument not clearly established federal law | Court declined to reach as a federal due-process violation under AEDPA because controlling Supreme Court precedent does not clearly establish a constitutional rule here; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (voir dire nondisclosure requires showing of dishonest answer and that truthful answer would provide cause for challenge)
- Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (trial court credibility/juror-bias findings entitled to special deference)
- Fields v. Brown, 503 F.3d 755 (juror dishonesty is a factual question; review standards for juror-bias claims)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (harmless-error standard for collateral review: whether error had substantial and injurious effect)
- Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (Sixth Amendment right to jury based on evidence produced in open court)
- Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445 (supervisory reversal where judge pressured jury to reach a verdict; later limited as supervisory rather than constitutional)
- Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484 (discussing jury-evidence and harmless-error frameworks)