473 F. App'x 446
6th Cir.2012Background
- Bates was indicted in 2006 on multiple counts including mail fraud, theft from a federal funds program, extortion, bank fraud, and tax‑set counts; he pled guilty to the four tax‑return counts on the first trial day and the mail fraud counts were dismissed; a jury convicted on other charges, and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- While his direct appeal was pending, Bates filed a 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations, and a JSSA claim; he later withdrew his IAC claim.
- The district court dismissed Bates’ Fifth Amendment and JSSA claims after an initial hearing; as to the Sixth Amendment claim, the court allowed an evidentiary hearing to address whether the claim could be prosecuted despite procedural default.
- The evidentiary hearing addressed jury selection procedures in the Eastern District of Michigan; the district court ultimately dismissed Bates’ petition for lack of prejudice to excuse the default.
- Bates appeals, arguing his Sixth Amendment claim is substantial and should be heard; the court reviews the §2255 denial de novo, applying standard that relief requires a constitutional error with substantial and injurious effect on verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bates procedurally defaulted his Sixth Amendment fair cross‑section claim and if he shows cause and prejudice. | Bates contends external impediments/cause existed to excuse default. | Government argues Bates failed to show cause and prejudice or actual innocence. | Yes, Bates failed to show both cause and prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733 (6th Cir. 2003) (standard for §2255 deference to district court findings; substantial prejudice required)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1986) (external impediment required for cause to excuse default)
- Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1982) (availability of factual basis; duty of inquiry and comity for nonraised issues)
- Regalado v. United States, 334 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2003) (cause and prejudice standard; good cause required)
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1979) (requirement of fair cross‑section under 6th Amendment)
- Berghuis v. Smith, 130 S. Ct. 1382 (2010) (review of systemic exclusion; opt‑out context later reversed on other grounds)
- Smith v. Berghuis, 543 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2008) (discusses underrepresentation and per se/systematic exclusion standards)
- Test v. United States, 550 F.2d 577 (10th Cir. 1976) (extreme underrepresentation not always conclusive of systematic exclusion)
- Rioux v. United States, 97 F.3d 648 (2d Cir. 1996) (statistical disparities; whether alone prove systematic exclusion)