Munt v. Grandlienard, No. 15-1499 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of murdering his ex-wife and kidnapping their three children, seeks habeas relief, arguing that the state trial court violated the Constitution when it refused to strike a juror as biased. The court concluded that the juror's response to a mental illness defense question, in isolation, is insufficient for petitioner to demonstrate that the state courts unreasonably determined that the juror was impartial. Even if the juror's statement amounted to a contradiction, the trial court was in a unique position to make the necessary credibility determination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Colloton, Circuit Judge, and Erickson, District Judge] Prisoner case - Habeas. The Minnesota state courts did not unreasonably apply federal law in determining that a juror's answers to questions regarding a mental-illness defense did not show she was actually biased.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.