900 F.3d 804
6th Cir.2018Background
- In 2006 an Michigan jury convicted Warren English III of third-degree criminal sexual conduct for having intercourse with a sleeping 17‑year‑old; he was sentenced to 21–180 months.
- During voir dire several prospective jurors disclosed past sexual abuse and were excused for cause; Juror A (who later sat on the jury) did not disclose that her father had sexually abused her at age eight.
- After conviction Juror A revealed the abuse in post‑trial proceedings; the trial court granted a new trial, finding a material nondisclosure that compromised fairness.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court had erred by presuming victims of sexual abuse are automatically excusable; it did not itself determine whether Juror A was actually biased and declined to remand for reconsideration under the proper standard.
- State supreme court denied leave; after rounds of habeas litigation this Court remanded for further proceedings addressing (1) whether the state court adjudicated the federal claim (AEDPA deference issue) and (2) on the merits whether Juror A’s nondisclosure violated the Sixth Amendment under McDonough.
- On remand the Sixth Circuit concluded the presumption that the state court adjudicated the federal claim was rebutted and, on de novo review, held English met McDonough’s test (material nondisclosure and that truthful answer would have provided a valid basis for a for‑cause challenge), reversing and remanding for further state proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (English) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEDPA deference applies (did state court adjudicate the federal claim on the merits) | Court of Appeals’ opinion rested on independent procedural/legal ground and left the Sixth Amendment claim unresolved; thus de novo review is required | State argues appellate language that English showed no prejudice constitutes a merits adjudication invoking AEDPA deference | Presumption of adjudication rebutted: court of appeals decided the trial court’s legal error and did not decide whether Juror A was biased, so de novo review applied |
| Whether Juror A’s nondisclosure violated the Sixth Amendment under McDonough (two‑prong test) | Juror A failed to answer honestly a material voir dire question and a truthful answer would have provided a valid basis for a for‑cause challenge; omissions and inconsistencies support deliberate concealment and inferred bias | State contended trial court credited Juror A’s testimony that omission was unintentional and there was no actual bias; appellee argued state appellate court implicitly found no prejudice | Under de novo review court held English satisfied McDonough’s second prong: record supports deliberate concealment and a valid basis for a for‑cause challenge; inferred bias appropriate; verdict cannot stand |
| Burden to show actual vs. inferred bias when nondisclosure is unintentional | If omission intentional, bias may be inferred; English argues evidence supports intentional concealment | State emphasizes trial court’s credibility assessment that omission was not deliberate, requiring showing of actual bias | Court found record (broad voir dire, excusal of similar jurors, Juror A’s inconsistent explanations) supports inference of deliberate concealment and inferred bias |
| Remedy following a finding of juror bias/nondisclosure | English seeks relief (new trial/remand) | State urges deference to prior state decisions and upholding conviction | Court reversed district court and remanded with instructions to return case to state court for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (establishes two‑part test for juror nondisclosure: dishonest answer to a material question and that truthful answer would have been a valid basis for a for‑cause challenge)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (presumption that a state court adjudicated a claim on the merits when it denies relief)
- Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013) (strengthened Richter presumption but explained limited circumstances to rebut it)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (clarifies AEDPA’s unreasonable‑application standard)
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (jury trial right is fundamental)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (addressing juror bias standards and limitations on implied bias)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) (standard for excusing jurors for cause when views would prevent or substantially impair duties)
- Zerka v. Green, 49 F.3d 1181 (6th Cir. 1995) (discusses when bias may be inferred from juror nondisclosure)