412 F. App'x 96
10th Cir.2011Background
- Teniente, a Wyoming state prisoner, seeks a COA to challenge the district court’s denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254.
- In 2005 a Wyoming jury convicted Teniente of first-degree murder and conspiracy; the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed in 2007 after remanding to address a juror-note prompted by Teniente’s girlfriend.
- The juror-note forum prompted scrutiny of the trial court’s handling of juror contact, and the Wyoming Supreme Court found no grounds to reverse.
- Teniente’s federal petition was dismissed by the district court and a COA was denied.
- The panel concludes Teniente’s COA request must be denied and the appeal dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims are exhausted or procedurally defaulted | Teniente exhausted via state court pleadings | Wyoming procedural bars apply | Claims are procedurally defaulted |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct and evidentiary error claims were fairly presented | Teniente raised these as due process issues | Wyoming had only asserted state-law or different federal arguments | Unexhausted and barred; procedural default upheld |
| Remmer-based juror-contact issue—presumption of prejudice | Wyoming failed to apply Remmer I presumption | Wyoming could have followed post-Phillips framework | Wyoming decision not contrary to clearly established federal law |
| Adequacy of the Remmer II hearing on juror contact | Hearing insufficient to explore full prejudice | Court had discretion to tailor the hearing | Not contrary to clearly established federal law; acceptable discretion |
| AEDPA review and independent/adequate state grounds | State court decision violated federal law | State procedural bars were independent and adequate | AEDPA deferential review applied; decision not contrary to federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003) (COA standard; substantial showing required)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000) (encouragement to proceed; not frivolous)
- Allen v. Zavaras, 568 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2009) (COA standard in 10th Cir.)
- Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1995) (exhaustion requirement—to alert state courts to federal claim)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (presumption of prejudice from juror contact)
- Remmer v. United States (Remmer II), 350 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1956) (discussion of hearing on juror bias)
- Phillips v. Williams, 455 U.S. 209 (U.S. 1982) (actual bias remedy; context for Remmer)
- Williams-Davis v. United States, 90 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Post-Remmer/Olano framework narrowing presumption)
- Scull v. United States, 321 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2003) (discusses Remmer and Olano interplay; trial court discretion)
- Gunnett v. State, 104 P.3d 775 (Wyo. 2005) (Wyoming juror-contact standards; common-sense inquiry)
- Skinner v. State, 33 P.3d 758 (Wyo. 2001) (Wyoming rule on prejudice and impeachment of juror contact)
- Olano v. U.S., 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (reconfigures Remmer; case-specific prejudice inquiry)
- Pennell v. United States, 737 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1984) (burden shift to defendant for certain juror-contact cases)
- Hawkins v. Mullin, 291 F.3d 658 (10th Cir. 2002) (remedial standards for habeas)
- Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2004) (AEDPA deferential review context)
- House v. Hatch, 527 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir. 2008) (clarifies clearly-established-law scope)