Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01907/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01907-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Kenney
Appellee
Dennis Krutilek
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1907

___________

Dennis Krutilek, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Michael Kenney, Warden, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2005

Filed: March 1, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Krutilek was charged in Nebraska state-court with theft of property, a

car owned by Karen Goswick and primarily driven by her daughter Julie, an

acquaintance of Krutilek. During pretrial voir dire, five prospective jurors stated they

had been the victims of theft or burglary. In response to questioning about their

ability to be impartial, Juror Lewis indicated he hoped he could be impartial, Juror

Ackerman stated her experience might interfere with her ability to be impartial, Juror

Greenfield offered that someone had broken into his car and had been convicted

without suggesting he could not be impartial, Juror Lannin stated she could probably

be impartial, and Juror Barton stated she did not know whether she could be

Appellate Case: 04-1907 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2005 Entry ID: 1872729 
*

The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

-2-

impartial. Defense counsel neither asked the jurors any follow-up questions about

their answers nor challenged them for cause, and counsel used all of her peremptory

strikes on other jurors. Following Karen’s testimony during the trial, Juror Holck

notified the judge that he had just realized he was acquainted with Karen’s daughter,

Julie. Outside the presence of the other jurors, the state trial court questioned Holck

about his acquaintance. Holck stated that he did not know Julie’s last name, he knew

her from the Eagles Club where she worked, they had never discussed the case, and

he would do his best to set aside their friendship. The state trial court found Holck

was not biased, and denied Krutilek’s motion for a mistrial. The trial proceeded, and

Krutilek was convicted. 

After exhausting state-court remedies, Krutilek brought this petition for a writ

of habeas corpus arguing, among other things, that his rights to a fair trial by an

impartial jury and to due process were violated because Holck, Lewis, Ackerman,

Greenfield, Lannin, and Barton were biased against him, and that his trial attorney

rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to seek the removal of the latter

five. The district court*

 held an evidentiary hearing and questioned Jurors Lewis,

Ackerman, Lannin, and Barton. Each of the four jurors testified they had decided the

case on the facts alone and deemed themselves impartial in the matter. The district

concluded none of the jurors were actually biased. The district court also held

Krutilek had not given the court reason to overrule the state courts’ presumptively

correct finding that Holck could set aside his friendship with the victim’s daughter

and decide the case based on the evidence alone. Because the jurors were not biased,

the district court concluded there was no denial of Krutilek’s right to a fair trial by an

impartial jury, and even if counsel’s performance in failing to remove the jurors was

deficient, no prejudice resulted from counsel’s failure. Accordingly, the district court

denied Krutilek’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Appellate Case: 04-1907 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2005 Entry ID: 1872729 
-3-

On appeal, Krutilek contends he was denied a fair trial by an impartial jury.

Krutilek argues Holck’s responses to the state trial court’s questions show he was

actually biased and the trial court was motivated by the lack of an alternate juror and

avoidance of a retrial. We must presume the state court’s findings regarding Holck’s

bias are reasonable, and having reviewed Holck’s testimony, we conclude Krutilek

failed to rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. §

2254(e)(1); Green v. Norris, 394 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2005). Krutilek also contends

bias should be presumed in this case. According to Krutilek, Karen’s credibility was

a key factor in the case, and favoritism towards Julie was automatically bias against

him. “[P]resumed bias is reserved for extreme cases, such as when a juror is a close

relative of a party or victim in the case.” See United States v. Tucker, 243 F.3d 499,

509 (8th Cir. 2001). Holck and Julie’s casual acquaintance was not a relationship

warranting a presumption of bias. See id. 

 Krutilek also contends the equivocal responses of the five other jurors show

actual bias. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and gave Krutilek an

opportunity to prove the jurors were biased against him. See Johnson v. Armontrout,

961 F.2d 748, 752 (8th Cir. 1992). The jurors testified they were not biased. Thus,

the district court’s finding that there was no actual bias is not clearly erroneous. See

Green, 394 F.3d at ___. 

Krutilek last argues his trial attorney’s failure to seek removal of the five jurors

denied him the effective assistance of counsel. To show ineffective assistance of

counsel, Krutilek must show both that counsel’s performance fell below an

objectively reasonable standard, and that the defective performance prejudiced his

defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); White v. Luebbers,

307 F.3d 722, 727-28 (8th Cir. 2002). In our view, “counsel’s performance fell below

what can [reasonably] be expected of a professional defender.” Id. at 727. Krutilek’s

attorney admitted at the evidentiary hearing that Krutilek’s trial was her first and

having no voir dire strategy, she did not attempt to follow up the jurors’ equivocal

Appellate Case: 04-1907 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/01/2005 Entry ID: 1872729 
-4-

answers with more questioning, or try to have the jurors removed for cause.

Nevertheless, because the jurors were not biased, Krutilek cannot show his attorney’s

failure prejudiced him. After reviewing the record, including the jurors’ testimony

that they had been impartial and had decided the case based on the facts alone, we

cannot say we lack confidence in the outcome of Krutilek’s trial. See id. at 728. 

We thus affirm the district court’s denial of Krutilek’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1907 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/01/2005 Entry ID: 1872729