BRYANT WILLIAMS V. GARY SWARTHOUT, No. 11-57255 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on October 23, 2014.
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2015 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK BRYANT KEITH WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-57255 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-04053-AG-OP v. MEMORANDUM* GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 4, 2014 Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. On October 23, 2014, we filed an opinion reversing the district court’s denial of Williams’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and directing the district court to grant the writ. See Williams v. Swarthout, 771 F.3d 501, 509–10 (9th Cir. 2014). We stayed the mandate while the Supreme Court considered Davis v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Ayala, No. 13-1428. The Supreme Court has since issued its opinion in Ayala. See 135 S. Ct. 2187 (2015). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We withdraw our former opinion and affirm the district court. According to Williams, the California Court of Appeal determined that the trial court committed constitutional error by instructing the jury that Williams had pled guilty, but concluded that the error was harmless. Williams misreads the state court’s opinion. Under California law, an alleged improper influence on the jury rises to a due process violation only if it was “‘inherently and substantially likely to have influenced a juror.’” People v. Ramos, 101 P.3d 478, 497 (Cal. 2004) (quoting People v. Nesler, 941 P.2d 87, 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)). Here, the state court of appeal concluded that the trial court’s erroneous instruction was not inherently likely to influence the jury against Williams, and therefore that the error did not rise to a due process violation. Even if the California Court of Appeal had found a constitutional violation, its conclusion that the superior court’s error did not prejudice Williams was neither an unreasonable determination of the facts nor contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2198–99 (2015). When a juror announced during deliberations that the trial court’s erroneous statement that the defendant had pled guilty might have biased the juror, the court dismissed the juror and replaced him with an alternate. Otherwise, the court took pains to ensure that its misstatement had not affected any other juror’s ability to consider the evidence impartially. “‘Fairminded jurists could disagree’” as to whether the district court’s efforts cured any improper influence that its earlier misstatement may have had on the jurors. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 (2004)). AFFIRMED. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result.
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.
