Bell v. Uribe, No. 11-56768 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThe State appealed the district court's grant of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to petitioners, convicted of first degree murder. The district court concluded that petitioners' Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court removed the only juror advocating for acquittal. The district court removed the juror for willful misconduct under California Penal Code 1089 because she offered her expert opinion on petitioners' mental health and violated the court's instructions by consulting a dictionary in order to obtain a medical definition that she presented to her fellow jurors during deliberations. The court concluded that, without the benefit of the Supreme Court's recent guidance in this area, the district court erred in applying a de novo review of petitioners' claims instead of applying the appropriate standard of review under section 2254(d). The court also concluded, inter alia, that the state court's determination that the trial court properly discharged the juror for cause was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. Further, Petitioner DeMola failed to establish an Eighth Amendment violation in regards to her sentence. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated, remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s grant of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition with instructions to deny petitioners’ claims for relief and consider their remaining unresolved claims, and retained jurisdiction over future appeals. Petitioners raised a Sixth Amendment challenge to the trial court’s decision to excuse a juror for willful misconduct when the juror violated the court’s instructions by conducting independent research that she presented to her fellow jurors during deliberations, and by asking them to rely on her expertise and specialized knowledge as a mental health expert. The panel first held that the presumption, that the California Court of Appeal adjudicated the federal claim on the merits despite not expressly addressing that claim, had not been rebutted. See Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088 (2013). The panel next held that the California Court of Appeal decision upholding the juror’s removal for misconduct was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The panel also held that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual as to petitioner DeMola, a juvenile offender, because she was not sentenced to life without possibility of parole pursuant to a mandatory sentencing scheme that prohibited the court from taking into account potential mitigating circumstances. See Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012); Cal. Penal Code § 190.5(b).
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 21, 2014.
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.