Shawndra Boode v. D. Johnson
663 F. App'x 536
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Shawndra Boode appealed a denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging her jury convictions for two counts of first-degree murder.
- At trial a juror reported perceiving co-defendant Jorge Rodriguez acting threateningly toward a witness; the trial court questioned the juror, who stated she could be fair, and the court kept her on the panel.
- The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision; the federal district court denied habeas relief, and Boode appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo under AEDPA standards, assessing whether the state court’s factual findings or legal rulings were unreasonable.
- The panel considered three main claims: juror bias/misconduct, denial of adequate time for newly appointed counsel to prepare, and an unexhausted claim about expert access/funding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court violated Sixth/Fourteenth Amendment by keeping juror who perceived threat | Boode: juror was biased and should have been discharged | State: juror affirmed ability to be fair; trial court best placed to judge demeanor | Court: No unreasonable factual finding; juror impartiality upheld under §2254(d)(2) |
| Whether juror misconduct required reversal | Boode: juror’s observation prejudiced verdict | State: juror said she hadn’t discussed it; curative instruction given; evidence against defendants strong | Court: Even if error, harmless under Brecht (no substantial/injurious effect) |
| Whether trial court deprived Boode of due process by denying more prep time for newly appointed counsel | Boode: counsel had insufficient time to prepare, prejudicing defense | State: counsel had ~4 months and cross-examined effectively; no identified missed impeachment | Court: No Supreme Court authority shown; any error harmless under Brecht; no prejudice proven |
| Whether trial court denied right to present defense by restricting drug expert access/funding | Boode: trial court impeded expert’s access/funding (right to present defense) | State: claim unexhausted in state court review; not before federal court | Court: Claim unexhausted and not addressed on merits (28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(3)) |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (juror bias inquiry is a factual determination; trial court demeanor assessment entitled to deference)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (prosecution bears burden to prove juror impropriety did not prejudice defendant)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (habeas relief requires showing of substantial and injurious effect unless error harmless)
- Perez v. Marshall, 119 F.3d 1422 (trial court in superior position to assess juror demeanor)
- Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228 (equivocal juror can be found impartial after affirmative assurance)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA standard for unreasonable application of clearly established federal law)
- Yee v. Duncan, 463 F.3d 893 (Ninth Circuit reviews district court denials of habeas relief de novo)