729 F.3d 1052
9th Cir.2013Background
- Bell and DeMola were convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances in Riverside County; they were sentenced to life without parole.
- Juror No. 7 during deliberations was alleged to have acted as a mental-health expert and used outside information, including a dictionary, contrary to court orders.
- The trial court excused Juror No. 7 under Penal Code § 1089 after finding willful misconduct, and an alternate juror was seated to reach a verdict.
- The California Court of Appeal upheld the juror’s dismissal; the California Supreme Court affirmed without comment.
- The district court later granted habeas relief under AEDPA de novo review, but the Ninth Circuit ultimately reversed, applying the proper deferential standard of review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEDPA deferential review applied. | Bell and DeMola argue state ruling merits federal review. | The district court should apply AEDPA deference to state court ruling. | District court erred; deference applied. |
| Whether removal of Juror No. 7 violated the Sixth Amendment. | Removal was improper due to political/merits-based concerns. | Removal was proper due to willful misconduct and inability to deliberate. | California Court of Appeal's decision upheld removal; no Sixth Amendment violation. |
| Whether Williams v. Cavazos required de novo review after Williams and Johnson guidance. | Merits not adjudicated; de novo review warranted. | Merits were adjudicated; AEDPA deference applied. | Court held the state court adjudicated the merits; deferential review applicable. |
| Whether Miller v. Alabama prohibits the sentence under Eighth Amendment. | Juvenile Life without parole is unconstitutional under Miller. | Sentence was discretionary, not mandatory; Miller not violated. | No Eighth Amendment violation; Miller not controlling as applied. |
| Whether the jury-deliberation inquiry violated due process. | Inquiries into deliberations infringe on jury secrecy. | Prompt inquiry to determine misconduct is permissible. | Inquiry upheld as proper under Supreme Court precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088 (2013) (clarified when Williams issue is adjudicated on the merits)
- Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2011) (held Williams de novo review issue; affected AEDPA analysis)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (Eighth Amendment requires consideration of mitigating factors for juveniles)
- Perez v. Marshall, 119 F.3d 1422 (9th Cir. 1997) (upholds use of non-mandatory 25-to-life scheme with mitigating considerations)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (investigation of juror misconduct must be reasonably calculated to resolve doubts)
- Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc; juror-misconduct investigations)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (juror impartiality standard; jurors must decide on evidence presented)
- Remmer v. United States, 350 U.S. 377 (1956) (juror misconduct and due process considerations)
- Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448 (1926) (polling of jurors; supervisory authority)
- Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283 (1905) (discussion on jury balloting; dicta about propriety)
- People v. Cleveland, 25 Cal.4th 466 (2001) (federal dimensions of Cal. §1089 decisions)