898 F.3d 408
4th Cir.2018Background
- Thomas Porter was convicted in Virginia (2007) of capital murder for shooting Norfolk police Officer Stanley Reaves and sentenced to death; direct appeal and state habeas were unsuccessful.
- During voir dire a juror (Bruce Treakle) disclosed a nephew in Arlington PD but did not mention a brother who was a Chesapeake deputy sheriff; Treakle said he could be impartial.
- Post-conviction interview (Sattler affidavit) reported Treakle found Mrs. Reaves’s testimony "moving" and said this was because his brother worked in law enforcement in the Norfolk area.
- Porter raised (1) an actual-bias claim and (2) a McDonough voir-dire-dishonesty claim in state habeas and federal habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2254); state court addressed McDonough but not actual bias on the merits.
- The district court dismissed the § 2254 petition; the Fourth Circuit remanded for consideration of actual bias, after which the district court again dismissed without an evidentiary hearing.
- The Fourth Circuit majority (Thacker) affirms most claims but vacates and remands on both juror claims, ordering discovery and an evidentiary hearing; Judge Shedd concurs in part and dissents in part on juror issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Porter) | Defendant's Argument (Warden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether state court adjudicated actual-bias claim on the merits | Porter: state habeas failed to address actual-bias claim; remand required for hearing | Warden: state habeas resolved related IAC issues and found no admissible evidence of bias; §2254(d) deference applies | Held: State court did not decide actual-bias claim on the merits; de novo review warranted and remand for discovery/hearing ordered |
| 2. Whether an evidentiary hearing is required on actual bias | Porter: Williams v. Taylor and related precedent require a hearing where juror silence and post-trial statements suggest bias; discovery needed to develop facts | Warden: Allegations are intrinsic bias or harmless; Rule 606(b) and voir dire record show no basis for hearing; trial counsel asked general questions | Held: District court erred; under Williams and Townsend factors Porter is entitled to discovery and a hearing on actual bias |
| 3. McDonough voir-dire claim (dishonesty/failure to disclose) | Porter: failure to disclose brother’s law-enforcement status satisfied McDonough first prong; follow-ups might have supported a for-cause challenge | Warden: Juror truthfully disclosed a nephew in Arlington (trial venue); no deliberate nondisclosure and counsel did not ask follow-ups | Held: State court unreasonably applied McDonough; remand for discovery/hearing on McDonough claim too |
| 4. Other habeas claims (risk-assessment expert; Strickland claims; Brady; Martinez) | Porter: various errors (denial of risk-assessment expert, multiple IAC failures, Brady nondisclosure, Martinez excuse for defaults) | Warden: state habeas adjudicated most claims; AEDPA deference applies; trial counsel strategy reasonable; Brady records were publicly available | Held: Majority affirms district court on all non-juror claims (including denial of expert and Strickland/Brady rulings); denies Martinez relief for defaulted claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000) (silence in voir dire coupled with post-trial omissions can warrant evidentiary hearing on juror impartiality)
- McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (two-prong test for juror dishonesty in voir dire: honest answer and materiality to cause challenge)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (remedy for juror partiality is an evidentiary hearing to prove actual bias)
- Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963) (factors governing when federal evidentiary hearing is required on habeas)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Conaway v. Polk, 453 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2006) (juror nondisclosure of relationship to key witness sufficient under McDonough)
- Billings v. Polk, 441 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2006) (district court need not hold hearing on juror bias in every case; distinguishes discoverable vs. nondiscoverable bias)