54 F.4th 871
6th Cir.2022Background
- In 1993 Bess Horton was murdered; Samuel Fields was found at the scene with a distinctive "twisty" knife and subsequently convicted of murder and burglary and sentenced to death after a 2003 retrial.
- The prosecution's theory: Fields used the twisty knife to unscrew 17 painted Phillips screws from an external storm window, entered, and killed Horton within a short (approximately 14-minute) timeframe.
- During guilt-phase deliberations jurors conducted an unapproved experiment in the jury room using the admitted twisty knife to remove a cabinet door (with different, unpainted, universal screws) to test whether the knife could remove screws.
- Jurors later stated the experiment convinced some that it was possible for Fields to have removed the screws and thereby supported the prosecution’s timeline; the Kentucky Supreme Court nevertheless upheld the conviction.
- On federal habeas review the Sixth Circuit held the jury experiment introduced extrinsic evidence and that the Kentucky Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law; the court reversed and conditionally granted a writ unless the Commonwealth retried Fields within six months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurors’ experiment with the twisty knife during deliberations violated Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights | Fields: jurors introduced extrinsic, non-record evidence by experimenting on materials not identical to the window screws, depriving him of confrontation and a verdict based solely on in-court evidence | Warden: no Supreme Court case forbids juries from experimenting with admitted evidence; experiment used admitted knife and reenactment is permissible | The court held the experiment exposed jurors to extrinsic evidence and unreasonably applied Parker/Turner; violation of Fifth and Sixth Amendments was found |
| Whether Kentucky Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under AEDPA | Fields: state court ignored material differences between the cabinet experiment and the actual storm window and misapplied precedent | Warden: Fields framed federal precedent too broadly; no clear Supreme Court rule banning jury experiments | Sixth Circuit: Kentucky Supreme Court’s analysis was objectively unreasonable under AEDPA and contrary to controlling principles in Parker/Turner and related precedent |
| Harmless-error standard and prejudice (Brecht/Chapman) | Fields: the experiment was prejudicial and substantially influenced the guilty verdict given weak physical corroboration and reliance on suspect confessions | Warden: jurors testified experiment did not determine guilt; evidence supported conviction | Court: state court inverted Chapman; applying Brecht the experiment had a substantial and injurious effect given centrality of the issue and lack of overwhelming evidence |
| Remedy | Fields: asks for new trial | Warden: opposes relief | Court: conditionally granted habeas relief; sentence vacated unless state retries Fields within six months |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (articulates that verdicts must be based on evidence and argument in open court)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (impartial jury must base verdict on evidence developed at trial)
- Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (evidence must come from witness stand; juror contact with testifying officers violated rights)
- Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (extraneous communications to jurors by court officer violated defendant’s rights)
- Doan v. Brigano, 237 F.3d 722 (6th Cir.) (juror’s at-home experiment introducing extrinsic evidence violated defendant’s rights)
- Fletcher v. McKee, [citation="355 F. App'x 935"] (6th Cir.) (jury reenactment may be permissible where no extrinsic evidence is introduced)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error rule: beneficiary of constitutional error must show error did not contribute to verdict beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (habeas relief requires showing the error had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA requires federal courts to defer to reasonable state-court decisions)
- Brown v. Davenport, 142 S. Ct. 1510 (clarifies that satisfying Brecht is necessary but not sufficient where state court adjudicated harmlessness)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (confessions alone are less reliable; corroboration and protections required)