Simmons v. Woods, 2:16-cv-10554

Background

Marcus Simmons was convicted by a jury in Wayne County of first-degree premeditated murder, assault with intent to commit murder, assault with intent to do great bodily harm, felon-in-possession, and felony-firearm arising from an April 19, 2013 shooting that killed Donte Mack and wounded Kila Parks and others.
Witnesses (including Parks and the store clerk) identified Simmons from surveillance footage and a photographic lineup; police recovered 10 spent casings at the scene and arrested Simmons the next day wearing a jacket with an Obama image and 26 packages of marijuana in the pocket.
Simmons testified and presented an alibi witness (DeAngela Kelly) who said he was at her house that evening; he admitted in jail conversation to saying he "wacked out" the victim but claimed it was a misunderstanding.
On direct appeal the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed; the state courts rejected claims of judicial bias, prosecutorial misconduct (re: marijuana evidence), and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Simmons filed a federal habeas petition raising: (1) judicial bias/misconduct by the trial judge, (2) prosecutorial misconduct for eliciting drug-possession/sales evidence, and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object. The district court denied the petition and declined a certificate of appealability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial bias/misconduct	Judge’s extensive questioning and directions to witnesses (e.g., to look at the jury) showed bias and improperly influenced jurors	Judge’s questions were proper clarifications and ordinary courtroom administration; jury was instructed to disregard judicial opinion	Denied — judge’s questions were permissible clarifying inquiries and not evidence of bias; jury instructions cured any concern
Prosecutorial misconduct (drug evidence)	Prosecutor improperly elicited testimony about 26 marijuana packages and Simmons’ drug activity, which was unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant	Evidence was relevant to motive and connection between defendant and victim; admission was a state-law evidentiary ruling	Denied — no federal due process violation; admission of relevant evidence under state law does not alone violate due process
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to judge’s questions	Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to judicial questioning and direction to witnesses	Counsel’s failure to object was not deficient because the questions were proper; strategic non-objection to admissible evidence is not ineffective	Denied — counsel not ineffective under Strickland; objections to proper judicial questions or to admissible evidence would not have changed outcome
Certificate of appealability	N/A (Simmons seeks leave)	N/A (court evaluates reasonable jurist debate)	Denied — petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional right

Key Cases Cited

Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410 (6th Cir.) (state-court factual findings presumed correct on habeas)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Sup. Ct.) (AEDPA standards for contrary/unreasonable application of federal law)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (Sup. Ct.) (deference under AEDPA; state-court decisions stand unless unreasonable)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct.) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (Sup. Ct.) (prosecutorial misconduct reviewed under due-process/fundamental unfairness standard)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (Sup. Ct.) (limitations on prosecutorial remarks as a due-process violation)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (Sup. Ct.) (judge’s ordinary courtroom expressions do not establish bias)
Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (Sup. Ct.) (right to impartial judge under due process)
Turner v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (Sup. Ct.) (historic recognition of impartial tribunal requirement)
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (Sup. Ct.) (structural due-process bias principles)
Millender v. Adams, 376 F.3d 520 (6th Cir.) (deferential review of prosecutorial-misconduct claims on habeas)