Castillo v. State of Florida, No. 12-13053 (11th Cir. 2013)Annotate this Case
Petitioner was convicted by a jury of three counts of attempted armed robbery. One of the jurors was allowed to deliberate and vote on the verdict after missing the second of the three days of trial and all of the testimony presented on that second day. Petitioner's counsel did not object because he did not notice that the juror participated in the jury deliberations. The court concluded that there was no actual prejudice where there was no reasonable probability that if all six jurors, instead of just five, had heard the five prosecution witnesses testify during the second day of trial, petitioner would have been acquitted. Because petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not fit within the narrow bounds of United States v. Cronic or Roe v. Flores-Ortega, and she has failed to demonstrate actual prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, she was not entitled to federal habeas relief on her claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of the writ and remanded.