Smith v. Aldridge, 904 F.3d 874

Background

Raye Dawn Smith was convicted in Oklahoma of enabling child abuse after her two-year-old daughter died from blunt-force abdominal trauma; she received a 27-year sentence.
The case attracted intense media attention; the trial was moved to a neighboring county and the court imposed restrictions and jury admonitions to limit outside influence.
After trial Smith submitted affidavits claiming one juror (L.E.) slept continuously during the eight-day trial and other jurors were inattentive; two trial attendees also attested jurors slept.
The trial judge denied a new-trial motion, stating he closely monitored the jury and saw at most one brief instance of a juror nodding off; the OCCA credited the judge over the affidavits and denied relief after a limited evidentiary hearing.
Smith filed a § 2254 habeas petition raising (1) juror misconduct (sleeping) violating Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to the sleeping juror, and (3) prejudicial exposure of jurors to news/publicity; the district court and this panel denied relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a juror sleeping throughout trial denied an impartial jury/due process	Smith: juror L.E. was asleep most of the trial, so jury was impaired and verdict unreliable	State: trial judge observed jury and denied continuous sleeping; judge’s direct observation and lack of objections by counsel support crediting judge	Denied — OCCA’s factual finding crediting judge was reasonable under §2254(d)(2)
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to alert court about sleeping juror	Smith: counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial under Strickland	State: claim depends on factual premise that juror slept continuously, which OCCA reasonably rejected	Denied — ineffective-assistance claim fails because underlying factual finding was reasonable
Whether state court erred by refusing an evidentiary hearing on juror-sleep allegations	Smith: OCCA’s refusal made its fact-finding process defective and §2254(d)(2) relief warranted	State: OCCA reasonably declined a hearing because record supported judge’s account; denial did not render findings unreasonable	Denied — failure to hold hearing not objectively unreasonable given record and AEDPA deference
Whether juror exposure to media/publicity prejudiced verdict	Smith: extensive publicity and website created prejudice requiring relief or presumptive prejudice	State: court took measures (venue change, voir dire, admonitions, gag order) and Smith did not show substantial, injurious effect on verdict	Denied — Smith forfeited AEDPA argument and, on merits, OCCA reasonably concluded no prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (sleeping juror/inattentiveness not automatic reversible error; prejudice required)
Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (due process requires impartial jury unaffected by outside influence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (deficiency and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (AEDPA’s standard for unreasonable factual determinations)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (review under §2254(d) limited to record before state court)
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (trial publicity can require relief where court fails to protect defendant from prejudicial publicity)
Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (harmless-error standard; petitioner must show substantial and injurious effect)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state-court decisions; unreasonable standard)
Brumfield v. Cain, 135 S. Ct. 2269 (2015) (§2254(d)(2) requires that reasonable minds could not agree with state-court factual finding)
United States v. McKeighan, 685 F.3d 956 (10th Cir. 2012) (juror sleeping may violate rights only if prejudicial)