Manuel Tarango, Jr. v. E. McDaniel
815 F.3d 1211
9th Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Tarango appeals denial of his habeas petition challenging a juror contamination claim.
- Tarango alleged Juror No. 2 was prejudiced by being tailed by a police car on the second day of deliberations in a high-profile Vegas case.
- Nevada Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s denial of a new trial, applying Nevada law distinguishing juror misconduct from extrinsic influences.
- District court denied relief under AEDPA, deferring to state court findings.
- The opinion holds Mattox and related cases require prejudice inquiry when external contact with a juror is shown, and remands for an evidentiary hearing to assess prejudice.
- The court remands for de novo prejudice assessment and limited juror-experience evidence under applicable Ninth Circuit standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Nevada Supreme Court violated clearly established federal law by not considering prejudice from external contact. | Tarango argues the tailing had prejudicial effect. | Tarango's argument hinges on speculation; state court found no prejudice. | Yes; prejudice inquiry required and remand warranted. |
| Whether Mattox-based prejudice inquiry applies when external contact is not a communication. | Tarango contends Mattox governs prejudice inquiry. | State court treated contact as non-communicative, not prejudicial. | Yes; external contact can be prejudicial even without a communication. |
| Whether the evidentiary hearing was properly scoped and sufficient to resolve prejudice. | Tarango should be allowed full evidence of prejudice. | State court limited inquiry; a prejudice assessment is needed. | Remand for proper prejudice determinations. |
| Whether the court should apply de novo review or AEDPA deference given state-court adjudication. | Federal review should be de novo for prejudice questions. | AEDPA deference applies to merited state-court determinations. | De novo review for the prejudice issue; otherwise AEDPA applies to other aspects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (unclear external influence requires prejudice inquiry)
- Remmer v. United States (Remmer II), 350 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1956) (juror contact can prompt prejudice analysis)
- Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1892) (external contact tends to influence verdict; prejudice must be shown)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (U.S. 1982) (remedy is a hearing to prove actual bias; external influence inquiry mandatory)
- Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1966) (official influence carries weight; possible prejudice from external influence)