529 F. App'x 734
6th Cir.2013Background
- Warren English was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in Michigan; after trial the trial court granted a new trial when a juror (Juror A) failed to disclose during voir dire that she had been sexually assaulted as a child.
- At voir dire several potential jurors who disclosed sexual-victimization were excused or interviewed; Juror A was the last empaneled juror and did not disclose her childhood sexual assault until after trial.
- The trial court found Juror A failed to answer a material question honestly and granted a new trial under then-controlling Michigan precedent (People v. Manser).
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court applied the wrong legal standard (rejecting automatic exclusion of sexual-assault victims) and reinstated the conviction without remanding to decide whether Juror A was actually biased or excusable for cause.
- The Michigan Supreme Court denied review (3–2). English filed a §2254 habeas petition; the district court summarily dismissed it under Rule 4. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court erred in prematurely deferring to the state courts without first determining whether the state courts adjudicated the federal claim on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Juror A’s nondisclosure entitled English to a new trial under McDonough (i.e., juror failed to answer honestly and correct answer would justify a challenge for cause) | English argued Juror A’s omission was material and, under state precedent relied on at the hearing, such nondisclosure in a sexual‑crime case requires relief; trial court found nondisclosure and granted a new trial | State argued juror nondisclosure does not automatically prove bias; defendant must show actual bias or a valid basis for challenge for cause | Whether McDonough’s two‑part test is met was left undecided by the state appeals court; the Sixth Circuit remanded for adjudication rather than resolving bias on the record |
| Whether the Michigan Court of Appeals’ reversal constituted an adjudication on the merits for AEDPA deference | English contended his federal claim was presented and thus should be treated as adjudicated | State treated reversal as correcting trial‑court legal error and reinstated verdict; appeals court did not expressly decide actual bias | Sixth Circuit held the presumption of adjudication (Richter/Williams) may be rebutted here because the appeals court reversed on law and did not resolve the federal‑bias question; remand required to determine adjudication question |
| Proper standard of review in federal habeas (AEDPA deference vs. de novo) | English argued district court should not have summarily dismissed without determining whether state courts adjudicated the federal claim; if not adjudicated, de novo review applies | District court applied AEDPA deference and dismissed on the face of the petition | Sixth Circuit held district court erred by applying AEDPA without first resolving whether the state decision adjudicated the federal claim; ordered full briefing and review on remand (de novo if presumption rebutted; AEDPA if not) |
| Whether summary dismissal under Rule 4 was appropriate given the record and procedural posture | English argued the matter raised complex constitutional and procedural questions requiring full briefing and the complete state record | Respondent relied on district court’s summary dismissal as appropriate because no meritorious federal claim was apparent | Sixth Circuit held summary dismissal was inappropriate given unresolved adjudication question and factual/procedural complexity; vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for new trial when juror nondisclosure: honest answer failure and that correct answer would justify challenge for cause)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (deference to state court findings on juror bias facts)
- Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (U.S. 1984) (presumption of correctness for state factual findings on juror bias)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (AEDPA standards for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" of Supreme Court precedent)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (U.S. 2011) (state courts’ unexplained denials of relief are presumptively adjudications on the merits; presumption rebuttable)
- Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (U.S. 2013) (Richter presumption applies when state court rejects claims without expressly addressing them; presumption can be rebutted in limited circumstances)
- Zerka v. Green, 49 F.3d 1181 (6th Cir. 1995) (distinguishing deliberate concealment where bias may be inferred from cases of deliberate nondisclosure versus requirement to show actual bias when nondisclosure was not deliberate)