Thomas Porter v. David Zook
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18202
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2005 Thomas Porter shot and killed a police officer in Norfolk, Virginia; he was convicted of capital murder, sentenced to death, and state courts affirmed.
- Porter filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising nearly twenty claims, including juror-bias claims based on juror Bruce Treakle's family ties to law enforcement.
- At voir dire Treakle disclosed a nephew who was a police officer in Arlington but did not disclose a brother who was a deputy sheriff in Chesapeake (adjacent to Norfolk).
- Post-appeal investigation (juror interviews and affidavits) revealed Treakle said he was emotionally moved by the victim’s widow’s testimony because his brother was a sheriff’s officer.
- The district court dismissed Porter’s petition, addressing only the McDonough juror-misconduct claim and rejecting it; it did not adjudicate Porter’s separate claim of actual juror bias.
- The Fourth Circuit held it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the district court had not resolved the actual-bias claim, dismissed the appeal, and remanded for the district court to decide that claim (including holding an evidentiary hearing if appropriate).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality / Appellate jurisdiction | Porter: Appeal of dismissal is proper because district court disposed of petition by denying relief and issuing COA | Warden: Court disposed of habeas petition; appeal may proceed | Court: No jurisdiction — district court did not rule on Porter’s actual-bias claim; appeal dismissed and case remanded for adjudication of that claim |
| McDonough (juror deceit during voir dire) | Porter: Treakle failed to disclose a close relative in law enforcement, which was a dishonest answer requiring relief under McDonough | Warden: Voir dire disclosed a nephew; omission of brother was not dishonest or material under McDonough | District court rejected McDonough claim; Fourth Circuit did not disturb that ruling on appeal |
| Actual bias (Smith v. Phillips) | Porter: Treakle’s brother’s status and Treakle’s statement that he was moved by the widow’s testimony show actual bias or at least warrant an evidentiary hearing | Warden: Emotional reaction to testimony does not prove actual bias; statements do not establish juror was unable to be impartial | Fourth Circuit: District court failed to address this distinct claim; remanded for the district court to consider and resolve actual-bias claim (including possible hearing) |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (recognizes right to an impartial jury; distinguishes actual bias)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (juror deceit during voir dire requires proof of dishonest answer to a material question)
- Jones v. Cooper, 311 F.3d 306 (4th Cir.) (McDonough test not exclusive; distinguishes McDonough from actual-bias claims)
- Fields v. Woodford, 309 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir.) (personal victimization or family connection can warrant inquiry into actual bias)
- United States v. Scott, 854 F.2d 697 (5th Cir.) (failure to disclose a sibling deputy sheriff created genuine prospect of actual bias)