Designated for publication
- Canfield v. Lumpkin, 18-10431, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- Owen, C.J. (Owen, Higginbotham, Willett), Higginbotham, J., dissenting; habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel
- Affirming the district court’s denial of petitioner’s habeas claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate and challenge a juror who displayed partiality during voir dire.
- The petitioner was charged with continuous sexual abuse of his daughter; during voir dire, a potential juror responded that the subject was “creeping [her] out really, really bad,” because she had a grandson who could not talk but who she suspected may have been abused in an autism program he’d been in. She then noted that she would “probably” find the defendant guilty even if the prosecutor did not meet his burden of proof; but when the prosecutor asked all 60 members of the venire as a group whether they would have any trouble holding him to his burden, no one–including the potential juror who had answered regarding her grandson–responded. The juror (“M.T.”) also did not raise her hand to a number of other questions asked of the whole group that would have indicated an inability to provide a fair and impartial trial, even when others did raise their hands. Defense counsel did not challenge M.T., and M.T. ultimately was selected for the jury. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment.
- Under Strickland, as filtered through the deferential lens of AEDPA, the Court held that any deficiency in the trial counsel’s performance was not so obvious that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was unreasonable in finding otherwise. The Court also held that there was not clear and convincing evidence that M.T. was in fact biased. The Court also held that, even if M.T. had been biased, there was not evidence in the record to show that the state court was unreasonable in finding that her presence on the jury did not prejudice the outcome of the trial. “Strickland sets a high bar, which AEDPA raises higher still. Even assuming Canfield clears the former, he falters at the latter.”
- Judge Higginbotham dissented, prefacing his dissent with this note: “Today we return to critical issues attending the difficulties of jury selection. A cornerstone of the fair trial, it is the last chance for the court to expose prejudice and bias before the jurors repair to a virtual vault where deliberations are sealed, not to be opened except in the most egregious cases. This ‘no-impeachment rule’ grew out of our common-law heritage and is now codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence and entrenched in the laws of every state. Shielding the jury’s deliberations from scrutiny protects the finality of the process, enables jurors to deliberate honestly, and ensures, as best can be done, their willingness to return a true, if unpopular, verdict. But this sealing canon comes at a cost: we cannot probe the effects of a juror’s bias in the jury room, and in those rare cases when we can and do, remedies for the unfairness are elusive. As jury selection is the lynchpin of an impartial jury, it ought never be a hasty minuet or check-the-boxes exercise; it must always be as exacting and careful a process as the case demands. As in the case now before us, potential jurors often come with personal experiences and grasping emotions bottled in memory and easily set off. These realities bind the trial judge in the interest of true verdicts and bind the attorneys in meeting their adversarial duty to identify and exclude biased jurors. When a juror evidences a potential bias, the selection process must root it out with specific and direct questioning, with the judge resolving uncertainty in favor of exclusion.”
- Watkins v. Three Administrative Remedy Coordinators of the Bureau of Prisons, 19-40869, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- Stewart, J. (Jolly, Stewart, Oldham), Bivens claim
- Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s Bivens claim that various prison officials violated his constitutional rights by tampering with his meals and denying his grievance.
- The Court held that Bivens should not be extended to the new context of First Amendment retaliation claims against prison administrators. The Court also held that the administrative remedy coordinators at BOP could not be liable because vicarious liability claims could not be recognized under Bivens
Unpublished
- U.S. v. Rahim, 19-11341, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Haynes, Graves, Willett), criminal, sufficiency of evidence, Sixth Amendment
- Affirming conviction of conspiring and attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, as well as making false statements to federal agents.
- U.S. v. Duvall, 20-10004, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Graves, Willett, Duncan), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Killough, 20-10578, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Barksdale, Graves, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming 360-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.
- U.S. v. Soto-Salazar, 20-40237, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Graves, Willett, Duncan), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Vasquez, 20-40278, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Higginson), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- Rubio v. Garland, 20-60259, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (Barksdale, Graves, Oldham), immigration
- Denying in part and dismissing in part El Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing of her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying her applications for: asylum; withholding of removal; and protection under the CAT.
- Roman v. Anthony, 21-30109, appeal from W.D. La.
- per curiam (Clement, Elrod, Haynes), prisoner suit
- Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of pre-trial detainee’s suit.
Take the Fifth 