McCamey v. Epps
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19649
5th Cir.2011Background
- McCamey was convicted of a meth-related offense based on precursor possession and exhausted state remedies challenging waivers of conflict-free counsel and an impartial jury.
- During voir dire, a juror with a prior relation to McCamey’s public defender was seated; the juror’s prior relationship became known after the verdict, prompting a hearing.
- The trial judge explained the potential waiver of rights and McCamey discussed with two independent attorneys before deciding to waive; an affidavit was later filed waiving the issues on appeal and post-conviction relief.
- Mississippi appellate courts held the waiver was knowing and voluntary, citing McCamey v. State (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) and the Mississippi Supreme Court denied certiorari and post-conviction relief.
- McCamey then sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing a violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; the district court granted relief after an evidentiary hearing, but the district court’s approach conflicted with Pinholster.
- The Fifth Circuit, reviewing state-court record under AEDPA, reversed the district court, holding the state court’s waiver ruling was not unreasonable and that the evidentiary hearing should be confined to the state-court record under Pinholster.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCamey validly waived his rights to an impartial jury and conflict-free counsel. | McCamey argues the waiver was not knowing or voluntary given inadequate explanation of rights. | Mississippi courts found the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily after thorough disclosure and independent counsel consultations. | Waiver found valid; not contrary to federal law. |
| Whether the district court erred by holding an evidentiary hearing under §2254(e)(2) after Pinholster. | Evidentiary hearing was appropriate to develop factual predicates for claims adjudicated on the merits. | Pinholster confines review to state-court record; no new evidence should be considered. | Evidentiary hearing improper; review confined to state-court record. |
| Whether AEDPA deference requires affirmance of the state court’s determination on the waiver issue. | State court unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent to the waiver analysis. | Waiver analysis complied with Brady and controlling authority; no unreasonable application. | State court’s waiver determination was not unreasonable under AEDPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (waivers must be knowing and intelligent acts with awareness of circumstances and consequences)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000) (limits evidentiary review in habeas proceedings when not adjudicated on the merits in state court)
- Pinholster (Cullen v. Pinholster), 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (review under §2254(d)(1) limited to record before state court; restricts new evidence in habeas hearings)
- United States v. Burns, 433 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard for waiver and knowing–voluntary inquiry under Brady framework)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (presumption against waiver of constitutional rights; waiver must be knowing and voluntary)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (feeds AEDPA deference framework; state court adjudication as baseline)