Virgil Hall, III v. Michael Zenk
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18283
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hall was convicted of murder and neglect of a dependent in Indiana in February 2001; extraneous information about a juror's inmate son allegedly reached the jury during trial.
- Hall filed a motion to correct error alleging jury impartiality; Indiana courts found extraneous information reached at least some jurors and conducted a hearing, but ruled Hall was not prejudiced.
- On direct appeal, Indiana courts applied a burden on Hall to prove actual prejudice, expressing discomfort with the burden allocation but relying on state precedent.
- Hall exhausted state post-conviction remedies and then filed a federal habeas petition arguing Remmer establishes a state burden to show lack of prejudice; the district court granted relief.
- The Seventh Circuit held that Indiana acted contrary to clearly established federal law by placing the prejudice burden on Hall and remanded for a further hearing to determine prejudice.
- The court emphasized that, although Remmer presumption may apply in some cases, actual prejudice must be shown and remanded to the district court to evaluate countervailing factors and potential curative instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Remmer presumption is clearly established federal law. | Hall argues Remmer creates a presumption of prejudice applicable to states. | State contends Remmer presumption is not clearly established, citing post-Remmer cases and circuit splits. | Remmer presumption is clearly established federal law for AEDPA review. |
| Whether Indiana courts violated Remmer by placing prejudice burden on Hall. | Hall argues state court misapplied Remmer by not applying presumption and shifting burden. | State argues burden allocation was consistent with applicable law and precedent. | Indiana courts acted contrary to clearly established federal law by placing burden on Hall. |
| Whether the constitutional error had substantial and injurious effect on the verdict. | Hall asserts grave doubt exists about harmlessness given prejudicial extraneous information. | State argues insufficient record to show prejudice; burden on Hall to prove prejudice remains in collateral review. | Remand for a hearing to determine whether Hall was prejudiced; not decided on the merits here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (presumptively prejudicial private juror communications; requires a protective hearing)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 212 (1982) (reminder to hold hearings on juror partiality; discusses burden and prejudice concepts)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (recognizes that some intrusions may warrant a presumption of prejudice in some contexts)
- Wisehart v. Davis, 408 F.3d 321 (2005) (post-AEDPA habeas case; states must carry burden of showing harmlessness in Remmer contexts)
- Moore v. Knight, 368 F.3d 936 (2004) (reminder that Remmer presumption is applicable in some post-AEDPA habeas cases)
- Whitehead v. Cowan, 263 F.3d 708 (2001) (reminds that Remmer presumption may not apply in all intrusions)
- United States v. Gallardo, 497 F.3d 727 (2007) (analyzed Remmer applicability and prejudice under AEDPA)
- United States v. Warner, 498 F.3d 666 (2007) (recognizes Remmer presumption but notes contexts where it may not apply)