William Thompson v. Philip Parker
867 F.3d 641
6th Cir.2017Background
- William Thompson, already serving life for a prior murder-for-hire, killed a prison-farm supervisor in 1986, was retried, pleaded guilty in 1995 under a plea agreement but received jury sentencing and a death sentence after appeal and retrial.
- Kentucky courts granted various post-conviction proceedings (including competency hearing) and denied most claims; Thompson filed a federal habeas petition raising seven claims; he appeals three: extraneous evidence, Mills jury-instruction error, and improper proportionality review.
- District court held AEDPA governs review for state-court merits determinations, allowed an evidentiary hearing on the extraneous-evidence claim (state court had not adjudicated it on the merits), and denied relief on the challenged claims.
- Juror foreman later testified at an evidentiary hearing that jurors mentioned a news story about an elderly parolee who reoffended during deliberations, but no physical news items were introduced to the jury room.
- The jury instructions required unanimous finding of aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and used language (e.g., "you the jury") in a mitigator catchall, but did not expressly require unanimity for individual mitigating findings.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court’s comparative-proportionality review compared Thompson only to other death cases; Thompson argued the court should have compared to similar cases where death was sought but not imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurors’ discussion of an unrelated news story during deliberations was prejudicial extraneous evidence violating due process | Thompson: jurors’ discussion of a news story about a paroled elderly murderer inflamed fear of future dangerousness and was extraneous evidence warranting habeas relief | Warden: mere mention of unrelated news and jurors’ general knowledge is internal and permissible; no physical extraneous evidence was brought into jury room | Court: Affirmed — discussion of unrelated news story was not extraneous evidence requiring relief; jurors may use general knowledge in deliberations |
| Whether jury instructions violated Mills by implying unanimity was required to consider mitigating factors | Thompson: instruction phrasing ("you the jury") could reasonably be read to require unanimous finding of mitigators, violating Mills | Commonwealth: instructions did not require unanimous finding of mitigating factors; only aggravators had explicit unanimity and beyond-reasonable-doubt requirements | Court: Affirmed — instructions were closer to those approved in Spisak; no unreasonable application of Mills by state court |
| Whether Kentucky Supreme Court’s comparative-proportionality review was constitutionally inadequate because it compared only death cases | Thompson: comparison pool was too small and therefore review denied due process | Warden: no constitutional right to comparative-proportionality review beyond state law; Kentucky court followed its statute | Court: Affirmed — no federal due-process violation; state court complied with Kentucky law and no federal entitlement to broader comparative review |
Key Cases Cited
- Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (holding that procedure requiring jurors to find mitigating circumstances unanimously violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (clarifying that instructions requiring unanimous finding of aggravators do not necessarily mean unanimous finding of each mitigator and upholding similar forms)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (explaining AEDPA standards for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application")
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (describing deference to state-court decisions under AEDPA and the "fairminded jurists" standard)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limiting habeas review of new evidence where state-court record is closed)
- Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (Eighth Amendment requires ability to consider all mitigating evidence)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (right to an impartial jury under Sixth Amendment)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (impartial jury requirement)
- Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40 (distinguishing external publicity from jurors’ internal life experiences in assessing extraneous influence)