Martez Bickham v. Thomas Winn
888 F.3d 248
6th Cir.2018Background
- Martez Bickham was convicted in Michigan state court after a jury trial on multiple charges (including second-degree murder and armed robbery).
- Before voir dire, court officers cleared the public from the courtroom; defense counsel objected citing Presley v. Georgia (right to a public trial).
- The trial judge explained the removal was to seat a large venire and said some spectators would be readmitted after the panel was seated; counsel did not request specific spectators be readmitted.
- After the panel was seated, deputies did not allow the public to reenter; counsel objected again only after voir dire concluded.
- Michigan Court of Appeals held Bickham waived the claim by failing to make a contemporaneous objection; Michigan Supreme Court denied leave.
- On federal habeas, the Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of relief, finding Bickham procedurally defaulted under Michigan’s contemporaneous‑objection rule and that no cause/prejudice or miscarriage of justice was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of the public from voir dire violated the Sixth Amendment | Bickham: removal of public (and failure to permit reentry) violated right to public trial under Presley | State: courtroom management; Bickham failed to preserve claim by not objecting when reentry was denied | Court: merits not reached—claim procedurally defaulted for failure to comply with Michigan contemporaneous‑objection rule |
| Whether Bickham preserved his claim by his initial objection | Bickham: initial objection was timely and court’s assurance that spectators would be readmitted made further objection unnecessary | State: initial objection was premature; preservation required objection after panel seated and spectators denied reentry | Court: initial objection insufficient because counsel did not renew objection when reentry was refused |
| Whether Michigan enforced an adequate and independent state procedural rule | Bickham: rule (re‑assert objections after court’s acknowledgment) was not firmly established or regularly followed | State: Michigan’s contemporaneous‑objection rule is longstanding and was applied by the state court | Court: rule was adequately established and enforced; procedural default applies |
| Whether procedural default can be excused | Bickham: relied on trial court’s assurance; thus cause exists; denial of public trial is structural error | State: no cause or prejudice shown; default not excused | Court: no cause/prejudice or miscarriage of justice shown; default not excused; habeas claim barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (public‑trial presumption; courts must consider alternatives before closure)
- Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411 (1991) (standard for when state procedural rule is "firmly established and regularly followed")
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (cause-and-prejudice and miscarriage-of-justice exceptions to procedural default)
- Willis v. Smith, 351 F.3d 741 (6th Cir. 2003) (elements for establishing procedural default)