39 F.4th 988
8th Cir.2022Background
- Zachariah Marcyniuk was convicted of capital murder in Arkansas and sentenced to death; post-conviction review and direct appeal affirmed his conviction and sentence.
- Before trial the parties used a 29‑page juror questionnaire; defense counsel agreed to a separate, off‑the‑record pretrial strike procedure in which each side submitted 15 names to be excused; those 30 were not summoned and these strikes did not count as formal peremptories; the lists were kept in a separate 16‑page juror information file at the county clerk’s office, not in the trial docket.
- Federal habeas counsel later learned of the off‑the‑record strikes from a clerk’s employee and raised claims that the procedure violated Marcyniuk’s rights to be present, to a public trial, and to appellate review and that trial counsel was ineffective for participating.
- The district court dismissed these claims as procedurally defaulted (Marcyniuk failed to raise them in state court) and denied discovery and an evidentiary hearing; Marcyniuk obtained a limited COA and appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: it held Marcyniuk failed to show cause and prejudice to excuse the defaults, Martinez did not save the ineffective‑assistance claim because it was not "substantial," and denial of discovery/hearing was proper under §2254(e)(2) as interpreted in Shinn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state‑court procedural default could be excused because state officials concealed jury‑selection records or made them unavailable | Marcyniuk: court reporter and clerk omitted/sequestered juror file from record and thus prevented raising claims on direct appeal/post‑conviction; file was not reasonably discoverable | State: clerk’s and reporter’s certifications were accurate; juror file was not required in the appellate record, was kept at the clerk’s office and available to counsel; no concealment | No concealment; juror file was reasonably available; cause not shown to excuse default |
| Whether the Martinez/Trevino exception excuses default of the ineffective‑assistance‑of‑trial‑counsel claim | Marcyniuk: state collateral counsel was ineffective/absent so Martinez applies | State: even if Martinez applies, the underlying claim is not "substantial" because no prejudice or fundamental unfairness is shown | Martinez inapplicable—claim not substantial; no prejudice/fundamental unfairness shown |
| Whether trial counsel’s off‑record participation rendered trial fundamentally unfair or prejudiced defendant under Strickland/Weaver | Marcyniuk: off‑record strikes created secret selection that may have been discriminatory and altered jury composition | State: majority of voir dire and all evidentiary/sentencing phases were public; a record of the strikes existed at the clerk’s office; no proof of discriminatory effect or prejudice | No fundamental unfairness; no Strickland prejudice shown |
| Whether district court erred in denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing under §2254(e)(2) and Shinn v. Ramirez | Marcyniuk: hearing and discovery required to prove state interference, lack of diligence by state counsel, and prejudice | State: Shinn bars expanding state‑court record or holding an evidentiary hearing unless §2254(e)(2) narrow tests are satisfied; petitioner did not meet those tests | Denial proper under §2254(e)(2) as interpreted in Shinn; petitioner failed to show entitlement to develop new evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance plus prejudice)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default rule; cause and prejudice framework)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (narrow exception allowing ineffective‑assistance claims to overcome procedural default when state collateral counsel was absent or ineffective)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (Martinez applies where state procedural framework makes direct appeal of IATC claims unlikely)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (public‑trial exclusion may be excused if attorney errors rendered trial fundamentally unfair)
- Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022) (limits federal evidentiary hearings and expansion of state‑court record under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2))