Tarango v. McDaniel, No. 13-17071 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of seven felony counts related to a robbery and burglary using a deadly weapon, appealed the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief, claiming violation of his due process right to a fair and impartial jury, where a police vehicle followed Juror No. 2, a known holdout against a guilty verdict, for approximately seven miles, on the second day of deliberations, in a highly publicized trial involving multiple police victims. The court held that the state court's decision was contrary to Mattox v. United States because the state court improperly limited its inquiry to whether the external contact amounted to a “communication” and did not investigate the prejudicial effect of the police tail. Therefore, the court reviewed de novo the question whether the extrinsic contact could have influenced the verdict and prejudiced petitioner. The court concluded that, because the trial court prevented petitioner from offering evidence to demonstrate prejudice, remand for an evidentiary hearing and further fact finding was necessary.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel vacated the district court’s judgment denying a habeas corpus petition, and remanded, in a case in which a Nevada state prisoner claims violation of his right to a fair and impartial jury, where a police vehicle followed a known hold-out juror, for approximately seven miles, on the second day of deliberations in a highly publicized trial involving multiple police victims. The panel held that the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision upholding the petitioner’s convictions was contrary to Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (1892), because the court improperly limited its inquiry to whether the external contact amounted to a “communication” and did not investigate the prejudicial effect of the police tail. The panel therefore reviewed de novo the question whether the extrinsic contact could have influenced the jury’s verdict and prejudiced the petitioner. Because the state trial court prevented the petitioner from offering certain evidence to demonstrate prejudice, the panel remanded for an evidentiary hearing and further fact finding. Dissenting, Judge Rawlinson wrote that Mattox is far afield from the dispositive issue, the majority gives no deference to the decision of the Nevada Supreme Court but engages in impermissible appellate fact finding, and no Supreme Court case supports the majority’s conclusion. TARANGO V. MCDANIEL 3
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 16, 2016.
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.