High Court Considers Sixth Amendment Ruling in Juror “Bias” Case

Johnson v. Williams (11-465) arises out of the California criminal trial of Tara Williams who was convicted of special circumstances murder and forearms enhancement. During the trial, a juror was dismissed for being biased against the prosecution and was replaced by an alternate juror after an inquiry by the trial court.

Williams appealed to the Court of Appeals under the California state constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction without specifically addressing Williams’ Sixth Amendment claim. She then filed a federal habeas corpus petition in federal court, which was denied by the district court.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, finding that Williams’ Sixth Amendment claim had not been “adjudicated on the merits.”

Warden Deborah K. Johnson (the Petitioner) appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the Ninth Circuit was incorrect. The Petitioner claims that while the Court of Appeals did not explicitly mention the Sixth Amendment claim in its decision, that court did adjudicate the Sixth Amendment federal claim on the merits.

The Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to adopt, as a rule, that when a case is decided, all claims are deemed to be adjudicated unless there is a plain statement of the court to the contrary.

Justice Kennedy opined to the Petitioner that even if the court did not adopt this rule, that the Petitioner could win because the Sixth Amendment claim was determined by the reading of the Court of Appeals ruling.

Justice Ginsberg, in narrowing the focus to the case at hand indicated that the state law claims and the constitutional claims were so dependent on each other, that the Sixth Amendment claims were actually adjudicated.

Many of the justices argued that the word “denied” assumed under the presumption of regularity, that all claims before the court were adjudicated, and no further language would be necessary. In addition, that to require this additional inquiry would likely increase litigation in these cases. Extrapolating from this, Justice Scalia lamented that such litigation in capital punishment cases could “reduce the sentence” of those sentenced to death.

Straying from the issue before the Court, a number of justices, including Justices Kennedy, Kagan, Ginsberg and Sotomayor dove into the merits and facts of the underlying case, expressing concern.

Justice Kennedy said I “hope this (excusing jurors for bias against the prosecution) doesn’t happen with much regularity.” Justice Kagen joined Justice Kennedy in calling the facts of the case and it’s outcome “troubling.”

In a lengthy discussion with the attorney for the Respondent, Justice Breyer went through the decision of the Court of Appeals noting that of the 27 lines of the decision, 14 of them dealt with the Cleveland case. And, Breyer continued, that because that case was a ruling on the Sixth Amendment and juror bias, the lower court must have reached the merits of Sixth Amendment claim.

Kagan seemed to agree summarizing that the issue before the court was not whether the Sixth Amendment claim was decided correctly the Court of Appeals in relying on the Cleveland case, rather, it matters that they actually considered the Sixth Amendment claim.

Shane Farnan
Shane Farnan is a U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for the Talk Radio News Service. Shane is a graduate of the University of Michigan and the UCLA School of Law. He has worked for law firms in Los Angeles and New York City, and has consulted for firms in New York and Florida. Shane is also the Associate Producer for The Thom Hartmann Program.

Click here for: Tuesday, October 21

● Perfumer indicted for currency violations

● Tracking fracking fluids

● EPA edges closer to strontium rulemaking

● Shopping in a smoke-free environment

● Trade panel rebuffs American consumers

● Students file First Amendment lawsuit

LISTEN: The Day Ahead – October 21, 2014

The Day Ahead Logo

More British army medics deploy to Sierra Leone, Ukraine and Russia talk energy in Brussels and the U.N. elects new members to the Human Rights Council.

Smithsonian Board Meeting Disrupted By Staff Seeking Wage Increases

Government employees protested for increased wages at the Smithsonian's annual Board of Regents meeting at the Smithsonian Hirschorn Museum, Oct. 20, 2014. (Photo by James Cullum)

Federal contract workers call for better pay and benefits at the annual Smithsonian Board of Regents meeting on Monday.

LISTEN: The World in 2:00 – October 20, 2014

The World in 2:00 continents logo

The U.S. transports Kurdish weapons to Kobani, disturbing reports of sexual violence in South Sudan and a very dirty Beijing Marathon.

Rubio Plans To Pursue Travel Ban Legislation

Rubio plans to introduce the new legislation in November when the Senate returns to session.

Perez Avoids Avoids Attorney General Questions

Perez tried to steer the focus of inquiries back on his current job as the Secretary of Labor.