Von Tobel v. Benedetti, No. 18-15892 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit withdrew a memorandum disposition filed January 9, 2020; filed a published opinion affirming the district court's denial of petitioner's habeas corpus petition; denied a petition for rehearing; and denied on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc. During petitioner's trial, one of the jurors had a conversation with a neighbor who is a police officer about difficulties the juror was having in the case and the police officer neighbor responded something to the effect that a defendant in a criminal trial would not be there if he had not done something wrong.
The panel held that the Nevada Supreme Court's test to evaluate juror misconduct—and the application of it in petitioner's case—is not contrary to, nor does it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. The panel stated that there was no decision of the Supreme Court that precludes the Nevada Supreme Court from requiring petitioner to show a reasonable probability or likelihood that the contact affected the verdict.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel withdrew a memorandum disposition filed January 9, 2020; filed a published opinion affirming the district court’s denial of Nevada state prisoner Gerald Von Tobel’s habeas corpus petition; denied a petition for rehearing; and denied on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc, in a case in which a juror, during the trial, had a conversation with a police-officer neighbor who told the juror something to the effect that a defendant in a criminal trial would not be there if he had not done something wrong. Von Tobel contended that the test used by the Nevada Supreme Court to evaluate juror misconduct in his case was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), because it placed a more onerous burden on him to prove prejudice than under the applicable Supreme Court precedent and because it did not presume that the contact was prejudicial. The panel observed that there was no decision of the United States Supreme Court that precludes the Nevada Supreme Court from requiring the petitioner to show a reasonable probability or likelihood that the contact affected the verdict. Applying AEDPA’s highly deferential standard, the panel therefore concluded that the Nevada Supreme VON TOBEL V. BENEDETTI 3 Court’s test to evaluate juror misconduct—and the application of it in this case—is not contrary to, nor does it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 9, 2020.
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.