840 F.3d 1006
9th Cir.2016Background
- Tara Williams was convicted of felony murder after a California jury deliberation in which one juror (Juror 6) remained a lone holdout favoring acquittal; the trial judge excused Juror 6, seated an alternate, and the jury convicted.
- At a post-note hearing the judge questioned Juror 6 and other jurors; many jurors reported Juror 6 discussed jury nullification, questioned the felony-murder rule, and indicated disagreement with the burden or law.
- Judge Romero announced he would dismiss Juror 6, stating explicitly he was not dismissing him "because he’s not following the law," but also saying Juror 6 was biased and possibly dishonest.
- Williams challenged the dismissal on Sixth Amendment grounds through state appeals and federal habeas proceedings; Ninth Circuit initially granted relief on de novo review but the Supreme Court instructed AEDPA review applies.
- On remand, under AEDPA deference, the Ninth Circuit majority affirmed denial of habeas relief, finding the state appellate court’s determination that Juror 6 was biased (unwilling to follow the law) was reasonable; Judge Reinhardt dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court impermissibly intruded on jury deliberations by questioning jurors | Judge’s inquiry violated Brasfield/Burton protections against probing jury division | Inquiry focused on juror bias, not the content of deliberations, and Smith v. Phillips permits bias hearings | Denied — hearing on bias permitted; not contrary to Supreme Court law |
| Whether Juror 6 was excused because of his views on guilt/merits (impermissible) | Reasonable probability Juror 6 removed for his position on guilt (relying on Symington) | No Supreme Court precedent adopts Symington; removal was for bias, not views on merits | Denied — petitioner may not rely on Symington; no clearly established Supreme Court rule supporting relief |
| Whether the state appellate court unreasonably found Juror 6 biased (unwilling to follow law) | Appellate finding contradicts trial judge’s explicit statement that dismissal was not for unwillingness to follow law | Appellate court reasonably interpreted juror testimony and could find unwillingness to follow law despite trial judge’s phrasing | Denied — state appellate court’s factual finding that juror would not follow the law was reasonable under AEDPA |
| Whether AEDPA deference bars federal habeas relief despite Ninth Circuit’s preferred rule (Symington) | AEDPA should not prevent correction of a constitutional violation where trial court’s stated reason contradicts appellate finding | AEDPA requires deference to last reasoned state-court decision unless unreasonable application or fact-finding | Denied — AEDPA precludes granting relief; the state-court decision was not an unreasonable application or fact-finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448 (prohibition on probing jury division)
- Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283 (same)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (trial courts may hold evidentiary hearings to detect juror bias)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (juror bias standard: inability to conscientiously apply law)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (impartial juror may set aside impressions and decide on evidence)
- United States v. Symington, 195 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.) (circuit rule on dismissal motivated by juror’s position on merits; relied on by prior Ninth Circuit panel)
- Wood v. United States, 299 U.S. 123 (Constitution sets no particular tests for juror bias)
- Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (AEDPA requires deference to state-court decisions)
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (Sixth Amendment protects jury integrity against judicial abuse)