352 F. Supp. 3d 812
E.D. Mich.2018Background
- In 1993 Thomas Gilmore was murdered; Wofford was charged in 2012 after DNA matches tied him to evidence at the scene; trial occurred in August 2013.
- During jury deliberations jurors repeatedly reported being deadlocked (one juror alleged holdout status; notes indicated "eleven to one").
- After multiple deadlock instructions and notes, a juror (Juror M) retained an attorney and reported harassment in the jury room; the judge found Juror M had "flagrantly" violated instructions and removed her for cause, seating an alternate.
- The reconstituted jury convicted Wofford of first-degree murder about 90 minutes later; Wofford received life without parole.
- Wofford argued on habeas that removing the lone holdout violated his Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous verdict; state appellate courts did not address that federal-unanimity claim on the merits.
- The federal district court found a reasonable possibility the juror was removed because she was unpersuaded by the prosecution (i.e., a holdout) and conditionally granted habeas relief ordering retrial unless the state re-tried him within 90 days; the court denied relief on sufficiency-of-evidence grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removal of juror during deliberations | Removal of holdout juror denied Wofford Sixth Amendment unanimous-verdict right | Trial court removed juror for flagrant violation of instructions (contacting counsel), not for being a holdout | Court: Reasonable possibility removal stemmed from juror's views on merits; removal violated Sixth Amendment; retrial ordered |
| Applicability of AEDPA deference | Wofford asserted state courts failed to address the federal-unanimity claim on the merits | State courts cited state-law analogues; relied on procedural findings | Court: State appellate courts did not address the Sixth Amendment unanimity claim; §2254(d) not a bar; factual findings presumptively correct except where rebutted by clear and convincing evidence |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (Jackson claim) | Wofford argued the evidence was insufficient to convict | State argued evidence (motive, opportunity, DNA at entry point) supported conviction | Court: Deferential Jackson/AEDPA review upheld state court; sufficiency claim denied |
| Remedy and relief | Wofford sought reversal/vacatur based on constitutional error | State sought to retain conviction or retrial opportunity | Court conditionally granted habeas: release unless retried within 90 days; appointed counsel for habeas proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 823 F.2d 591 (D.C. Cir.) (juror removal improper if request to quit may stem from belief evidence is insufficient)
- United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir.) (vacating conviction where record raised possibility juror removed for being unpersuaded by government)
- United States v. Symington, 195 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.) (if record discloses reasonable possibility removal was motivated by juror's views on merits, dismissal is improper)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for review of sufficiency of evidence)
- Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013) (§2254(d) application where state decision addressed related federal principles)
- Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626 (9th Cir.) (jury's role as safeguard against state and court power; caution against dismissing jurors for merit-based views)