Quonshay Mason v. DeWayne Burton, 16-2080

Mason was convicted in Michigan of first-degree murder, conspiracy, assault with intent to murder, and felony firearm for a shooting that left one victim dead and another wounded; Dennis was the primary prosecution witness.
At trial, defense counsel characterized Dennis as a robber; the trial judge twice instructed the jury to disregard suggestions that a robbery was planned, stating there was no evidence of a robbery.
The judge interrupted and limited certain defense questions, sustained some prosecution objections, and interjected on several evidentiary matters; defense argued this conduct showed judicial bias.
Michigan appellate courts affirmed the conviction but found the judge erred in telling the jury there was no robbery; they deemed that error harmless and not indicative of judicial bias.
Mason sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging judicial bias violating due process and that the judge’s comment required structural-error analysis; the district court denied relief and Mason appealed.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo but applied AEDPA standards and affirmed denial of habeas relief, concluding Mason failed to show bias or a structural error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge’s conduct demonstrated unconstitutional judicial bias	Mason: judge’s pretrial remarks, instructions telling jury no robbery, interruptions, and rulings show favoritism to prosecution and deprived him of a fair trial	State: judge’s remarks and interventions reflect courtroom management and correct evidentiary rulings, not bias; single improper instruction was harmless	Held: No due-process violation; conduct did not meet Liteky standard for disqualifying bias and state court’s rejection was reasonable under AEDPA
Whether telling the jury there was no robbery was a structural error requiring automatic reversal	Mason: judge’s comment was judicial bias and thus a structural error that cannot be harmless	State: the appellate court treated the comment as non-structural error and found it harmless; Mason did not preserve this issue for federal habeas jurisdiction	Held: Court lacked COA/jurisdiction to consider as new claim; in any event, the comment was not structural bias and harmlessness review was appropriate

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) (presumption that public officials properly perform duties; bias claims require proof)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial remarks during trial are disqualifying only if they show such favoritism or antagonism that fair judgment is impossible)
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) (fair tribunal requirement for due process)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (standards for AEDPA review: contrary to or unreasonable application of clearly established federal law)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA’s ‘‘objectively unreasonable’’ standard is difficult to meet)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (some errors are structural and not subject to harmless-error analysis)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (discussion of reasonable-doubt principle underlying criminal procedural protections)
United States v. Powers, 500 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2007) (trial judge may question witnesses and intervene to prevent repetitive or irrelevant questioning)