Zachariah Marcyniuk v. Dexter Payne, No. 19-1943 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Appellant petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus in part on the basis that an off-the-record jury selection procedure violated his constitutional rights. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court dismissed Appellant’s petition with prejudice. The Eighth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability as to whether the district court prematurely dismissed Appellant’s claims that the pretrial jury selection procedure violated his right to be present, right to a public trial and right to an appeal and that his trial counsel was ineffective for participating in the procedure.
The Eighth Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court explained that Appellant has not shown that “fundamental unfairness” resulted from his trial counsel’s participation in the pretrial jury selection procedure. Appellant alleged that his was fundamentally unfair because he was unaware of the pretrial jury selection procedure and any discriminatory strikes made during this procedure. However, the court wrote, that Appellant’s trial counsel agreed to and participated in the procedure, which effectively gave both parties an additional 15 peremptory strikes; a record was, in fact, made of these strikes, and maintained by and available for review at the Washington County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office; the written submission of strikes that occurred as part of the pretrial jury selection procedure was only a portion of voir dire; and the remainder of voir dire, along with the evidentiary and sentencing phases of the trial, remained open to the public. Thus, Appellant’s trial counsel’s participation in the pretrial jury selection procedure did not render his trial fundamentally unfair.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Loken and Stras, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Death Penalty Matter. The parties do not dispute that Marcyniuk procedurally defaulted on his jury selection claims and the district court correctly determined that he did not demonstrate cause to excuse the procedural default of the claims; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing on cause and prejudice; the court agrees with the district court that Marcyniuk has failed to show that his trial counsel's agreement to and failure to object to the pretrial jury selection process prejudiced him or rendered his trial fundamentally unfair; because Marcyniuk failed to show that his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim was substantial, the court affirms the district court finding that his procedural default of the claim is not excused under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012); Marcyniuk was not entitled to discovery or a hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he failed to show that the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(e)(2) do not apply to him or that he can satisfy the statute's requirements; the district court did not err in determining state court employees did not interfere with Marcyniuk's appeal and post-conviction proceedings.
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.