THOMAS ALEXANDER PORTER v. DAVID ZOOK
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Thacker, August 3, 2018,
AEDPA – Juror Bias – A defendant alleging that a juror in a murder case involving a law-enforcement officer withheld at voir dire that his brother was law-enforcement in a neighboring jurisdiction is entitled to a hearing to determine whether actual bias existed
(Concur and Dissent – Shedd- Virginia’s decision to deny relief was not unreasonable)
Looks like the same Porter from a separate round of litigation.
Facts:
In 2007, Porter was tried and convicted before a jury in Virginia of the murder of a Norfolk law-enforcement officer.
During jury selection, defense counsel asked the jury panel, “Have you, any member of your family or close personal friend worked for or with any law enforcement organization, either as an employee or on a volunteer basis?”
Juror Bruce Treakle responded, “My nephew is an Arlington County police officer.” He said this relationship would not affect his ability to be impartial. He said nothing further.
Juror Treakle was ultimately selected to sit on the jury that convicted Appellant and sentenced him to death.
After his sentence was affirmed in state court, it was discovered that Juror Treakle’s brother was a law-enforcement officer in a jurisdiction that neighbored Norfolk and that participated in the manhunt following the Norfolk officer’s murder.
Porter challenged his conviction in Virginia court on the basis of juror bias, but the state court affirmed his conviction. Porter then challenged in federal court.
The federal district court judge denied Porter’s challenge without a hearing, finding the argument without merit
Held: The Court held that there was enough evidence suggesting bias that the trial court should have held a hearing to determine whether or not the defendant received a fair trial
Voir Dire – During jury selection, “voir dire” involves asking the jury panel questions to determine whether individual jurors are fit to serve. It also gives both sides information that they can use to decide whether or not to use a “strike” to remove individual jurors.
Voir Dire – If a juror is asked a specific question which encompasses two answers, a juror “fails to answer honestly a material question on voir dire” if he only mentions one of them.
From the Case: “Counsel is entitled to expect that when venire panel members take an oath to answer truthfully all questions put to them in voir dire, they will indeed tell the whole truth.”
Note: There are two separate issues when a juror lies or withholds information during voir dire: 1) that the juror “rigged” the trial by keeping his bias secret and 2) by not answering the question honestly, the juror kept the defense attorney from being able to conduct an adequate assessment of the jury and use his strikes/challenges effectively.
Bias – The Supreme Court has held that a juror’s misleading answers to voir dire could require a hearing to determine whether actual bias existed
Bias – Voir Dire – To prove a juror bias claim under this theory: (1) “a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire,” and (2) “a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.”
From the Case: “Point blank, Juror Treakle did not candidly answer counsel’s question. Appellant is entitled to find out why. “