Turner v. McEwen, No. 13-56385 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of attempted carjacking, appealed the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition, contending that his conviction was tainted because the jurors' verdict was influenced by something other than evidence admitted during the trial. At trial, the victim professed not to be able to identify defendant and testified that he was drunk and angry at the time of the initial identification. While he testified, a woman sat as a spectator shaking her head. Some of the jurors observed that action, and later said that they believed that the woman was the victim’s mother and that she was directing him not to identify defendant. The court concluded that there is no clearly established federal law sufficiently related to the facts of defendant's case upon which he can rely to support his claim. Therefore, the California Court of Appeal’s decision in defendant's case could not have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law given the lack of holdings from the Supreme Court regarding the potentially prejudicial effect of spectators' courtroom conduct of the kind involved here. The general principles that a jury decides a case based on the evidence produced at trial, and that the rights of confrontation and cross-examination are fundamental to a fair trial, are not sufficient to support a conclusion that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent in concluding that juror misconduct did not occur in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of California state prisoner Paul Andy Turner’s habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for attempted carjacking, in a case in which Turner claimed that jurors’ observation of a spectator directing the victim’s testimony at trial constituted consideration of extrinsic evidence or extraneous information, or otherwise violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. The panel held that the California Court of Appeal, which decided that juror misconduct did not occur in this case, could not have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law, given the lack of holdings from the Supreme Court regarding the potentially prejudicial effect of spectators’ courtroom conduct of the kind involved here. The panel wrote that the general principles that a jury decides a case based on the evidence produced at trial, and that the rights of confrontation and cross-examination are fundamental to a fair trial, are not sufficient to support a conclusion that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent. TURNER V. MCEWEN 3
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.