Smith v. Swarthout, No. 11-17116 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of offenses related to the attempted murder of his wife, appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). The court concluded that the state trial court did not unreasonably conclude that Juror No. 6 had credibly testified that he would be a fair and impartial juror; Juror No. 6's consideration of extrinsic evidence did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict on Counts II and IV; the record supported the California Court of Appeal's finding that the guilty jury verdict was unanimous on Counts III and IV and its decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding; and because defendant failed to state a due process claim in violation of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, the court did not reach defendant's final argument. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition alleging juror bias, misconduct, and related error in connection with a conviction of corporal injury to a spouse and making criminal threats. Petitioner was charged with four counts. The day after the jury notified the trial court that it had reached a verdict on two of the counts, the foreperson indicated to the court that Juror No. 6 had conducted research and discussed his findings with the jury. After polling the jury, the court accepted the verdict on the two counts reached before the revelation, and declared a mistrial as to the remaining counts and any special findings. The panel first held that the state court did not unreasonably determine the facts in denying petitioner’s claim that Juror No. 6 should have been discharged for bias when the juror unintentionally did not notify the court that his daughter was a neighbor of petitioner and the victim until after the jury had been chosen, then testified that he could be fair and impartial. The panel next affirmed the denial of relief as to petitioner’s claim that the jury considered extrinsic evidence when Juror No. 6 conducted his own research and discussed his findings with the jury, because this did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict on the counts of conviction. The panel also affirmed the denial of relief as to petitioner’s claim that he was denied a unanimous jury when Juror No. 1 initially and mistakenly stated during polling that he did not vote to find petitioner guilty of the counts of conviction, but later clarified that he did find petitioner guilty of the substantive crimes set forth in the counts of conviction. Finally, the panel affirmed the denial of relief as to petitioner’s claim that the trial court coerced a verdict by suggesting that if the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on a sentencing enhancement, the court would be required to discharge Juror No. 6, seat an alternate, and order the jury to begin deliberations anew.
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.