# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 34 95

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Bi ll ie Jer om e All en ,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

,

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

12 , 20 16

Fil ed : J ul y

20 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Bi ll ie Je ro m e All en was co nv ic te d on two ch arg es ari si ng fro m an arm ed ba nk

ro bb ery th at res ul te d i n t he de at h o f a b an k sec ur it y gu ard

, an d he was sen te nc ed to

de at h. He la te r m ov ed to va cat e hi s se nt en ce un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 on se ve ralgr ou nd s. The d i s tri ct co ur t de ni ed All en ’s m ot io n. W e gr an te d a cert ifi cat e of 1

ap pe al ab il it y on on e qu es ti on : W he th er A l l en was de ni ed effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l whe n hi s tri al co un se l f a i l ed to ob

ject to th e em

pa ne li ng of an an on y m ou s jury. W e co nc lu de th at co un se l’s fai lu re to arg ue fo r an ex te ns io n of th e la w to fo rb id

t h e jury pr oc ed ur es in All en ’s cas e di d no t co ns ti tu te in effe ct iv e as si st a n c e o f

co un se l, an d we t he refo re af fir m

.

In 19 97 , a gr an d jury ch arg ed All en wit h ki l l in g a ba nk se cu rit y gu ard in th e

co ur se of an arm ed ba nk ro bb ery, se e 18 U.S.C. § 21 13 (a), (e), an d us in g an d carr y in g

a fir earm du rin g an d in rel at io n to an arm ed ba nk ro bb ery th at res ul te d in a de at h by

m ur de r. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 ), (j)(1 ). The g ov ern m en t fi le d a ti m el y no ti ce o f

in te nt to see k t he de at h p en al ty.

Befo re jur y

sel ect io n, i n a cco rd an ce with 18 U.S.C. § 3 43 2, t he di st ric t co ur t

or de red di sc lo su re of th e na m es an d ad dr es se s of al l ve ni rep ers on s to All en ’s co un se l

an d t h e g o ve rn m en t. Each ve ni rep ers on was gi ve n an id en ti fy in g nu m be r, bu t th e

pa rti es di d no t k n o w w h i c h nu m be r was as si gn ed to whi ch na m e. The pa rti es al so

rece i ve d de ta il ed qu es ti on na ire s th at th e pr os pe ct iv e juro rs co m pl et ed

. On th os e

do cu m en ts

, th e juro rs were id en ti fie d on ly by nu m be r. Befo re vo ir di re , th e co ur t

in fo rm ed th e pr os pe ct iv e juro rs th at th ey wou ld be id en ti fie d on ly by nu m be r du rin g

co ur t pr oc eed in gs

. The pa rti es th en ad dr es se d th e pr os pe ct iv e juro rs by nu m be r an d

pr of es se d ig no ran ce of th ei r na m es

. A jury was se at ed ba se d on th e us e of nu m be rs ,

an d th e cas e pr oc eed ed to tri al in Feb ru ary 19 98

. The jury ul ti m at el y co nv ic te d All en

on bo th co un ts , and he was s en te nc ed to de at h.

Thi s co ur t affi rm ed All en ’s co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces on di rect ap pe al

. Uni te d

St at es v. All en , 40 6 F.3 d 94 0, 94 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (en ba nc ). All en so ug ht rel ie f un de r

The Hon or ab le E. Ri ch ard W eb be r, Uni te d S t a te s Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. All en v. Uni te d St at es ,

No. 4: 07 CV0 00 27 ERW

, 20 14 W L 28 82 49 5, at *1 60 -6 1 (E.D. Mo

. Ju ne 25

, 20 14 ).

Thi s co ur t t he n g ran te d a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on th e q ue st io n ra is ed he re.

All en co nt en ds th at hi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t fo r

fai li ng to ob

ject to th e em

pa ne li ng of an an on y m ou s jury. He arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d in de nyin g th e cl ai m an d, at a m in im um , sh ou ld ha ve he ld an ev id en ti ary

he ari ng to in qu ire in to co un se l’s th ou gh t pr oc es s. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s le ga l

co nc lu si on s de no vo . The d eci si on to res ol ve a § 22 55 m ot io n wit ho ut a he ari ng is

rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, bu t whe th er a he ari ng was ne ces sa ry de pe nd s in pa rt

o n o u r de no vo rev ie w of th e co ur t’s ru li ng on th e m eri ts of th e cl ai m

. Jef fr ie s v

. Uni te d S ta te s , 72 1 F .3d 10 08 , 10 14 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

To es ta bl is h a vi ol at io n o f th e Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o e ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e

of co un se l, Al le n m

us t sh ow th at hi s tri al co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce was de fic ie nt an d

th at All en su ffer ed pr ejud ic e as a res ul t. St ri ckl an d v. W as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 66 8, 68 7
(1 98 4)

. Our sc ru ti ny of co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce is “ hi gh ly de fere nt ia l,” id

. at 68 9; th e

m ov an t m

us t sh ow th at co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce fel l “ ou ts id e th e wid e ran ge of

pr of es si on al ly co m

pe te nt as si st an ce” th at is su ffi ci en t t o sa ti sf y th e Si xt h

Am en dm en t. Id

. at 69 0. The fai lu re of co un se l to an ti ci pa te a ru le of la w th at ha s y et

to be art ic ul at ed do es no t ren de r co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce pr of es si on al ly un reas on ab le

. Fiel ds v. Uni te d St at es , 2 01 F.3 d 1 02 5, 1 02 7- 28 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0) ; see New v. Uni te d

St at es , 65 2 F.3d 94 9, 95 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); And er so n v. Uni te d St at es , 39 3 F.3 d 74 9,

75 4- 55 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

The di sp ut e in th is cas e cen te rs on whe th er co un se l sh ou ld ha ve ob jecte d to th e

em pa ne li ng of an “ an on y m ou s” jury. Thi s co ur t ha s ap pr ov ed th e us e of an on y m ou s juri es in cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces an d se t fo rth f a c t o r s t o gu id e a de te rm in at io n ab ou t

whe th er su ch a pr oc ed ur e is warra nt ed

. Uni te d St at es v. Dar de n , 70 F.3 d 15 07

, 15 32

-
33 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ). All en arg ue s th at hi s cou ns el sh ou ld ha ve ob jecte d to th e us e of

-3

-nu m

be rs to id en ti fy th e jury on th e g r o u n d t h at th e pr oc ed ur e m ad e th e jury

“ an on y m ou s,” an d th at th e ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e di d no t jus ti fy th e pr oc ed ur e.

He co nt en ds th at th e us e of nu m be rs pr ejud ic ed hi s de fen se be cau se th e pr act ic e le d

th e jury to b el ie ve th at he was d an ge ro us

.

To ex am in e th e reas on ab le ne ss of co unsel ’ s pe rf or m ance, we m

us t co ns id er th e

st at e of th e la w at th e ti m e of tri al co nc ern in g whe th er a jury was pr op erl y

ch arac te riz ed as “ an on y m ou s.” The two le ad in g cas es in th e area were Uni te d St at es

v. Lee

, 88 6 F.2d 99 8 (8t h Cir. 19 89 ), an d Dar de n , de ci de d in 19 95

. In Lee

, th e tri al

jud ge as si gn ed nu m

be rs to each m em

be r of th e ve ni re du rin g jury se le ct io n an d sa id

th at al l refe ren ces to t h e ju ro rs wou ld be by nu m be rs

. The de fen se po ss es se d th e

na m es of th e juro rs , bu t it is un cl ear fro m th e de ci si on whe th er co un se l kn ew whi ch

nu m be r co rres po nd ed to whi ch na m e. On ap pe al

, th e de fen da nt s arg ue d th at th e us e

of nu m be rs to id en ti fy th e juro rs was an un co ns ti t u t i o n a l “ an on y m ou s” jury. Thi s

co ur t re jecte d th e cl ai m , ho ld in g th at th ere was “ no pr ejud ic e in th e co ur t’s

pr oc ed ur e” be cau se “ de fen da nt s’ co un se l were pr ov i d e d w i t h th e na m es of th e juro rs .” Id

. at 10 01 -0 2. The co ur t in Dar de n th en ru le d th at a jury was “ an on y m ou s”

whe n a tri al jud ge refu se d t o d is cl os e th e n am es of t he ve ni rep ers on s t o t he pa rti es

. 70 F.3d at 1 53 2.

G i v e n th e st at e of th e la w at th e ti m e of tri al

, it was no t pr of es si o n a l l y

un reas on ab le fo r co un se l to for eg o an ob jecti on to th e di st ric t cou rt’s pro ced ur e fo r

id en ti fy in g th e juro rs

. Lee he l d t h a t w h e re a di st ric t co ur t di sc lo se d th e na m es of

juro rs to de fen se co un se l, bu t th en id en ti fie d th e juro rs in co ur t on ly by nu m be r, th ere

was “ no pr ejud ic e in th e co ur t’s pro ced ur e.” 88 6 F.2d at 1 00 1- 02 . It was un se tt le d

whe th er Lee sh ou ld be li m it ed to a cas e whe re th e co ur t al so pr ov id es de fen se co un se l

wit h a li st th at sh ows whi ch nu m be r ha s be en as si gn ed to whi ch na m ed juro r. The

op in io n in Lee di d no t ex pl ai n whe th er co un se l po ss es se d th at in fo rm at io n. All en ’s

co un se l m ig ht ha ve ur ge d th e d i st ric t co ur t to co ns tru e Lee na rro wly an d to ex te nd

Dar de n to a cas e whe re co un se l w a s pr ov id ed wit h th e na m es of juro rs bu t di d no t

-4

-kn ow whi ch na m e m at ch ed whi ch nu m be red juro r in th e co ur tro om

. Bu t th e fai lu re

of co un se l to arg ue fo r an ex te ns io n of th e la w or a n o v e l in te rp ret at io n of ci rcu it

pr eced en t is n o t c on st it ut io na ll y de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce. New

, 65 2 F.3 d at 95 2- 53 ;

And er so n , 39 3 F .3d at 7 54 -5 5; Fiel ds , 20 1 F .3d at 1 02 7- 28

.

All en co m

pl ai ns th at th e di st ric t co ur t at le as t sh ou ld ha ve he ld an ev id en ti ary

he ari ng to d e t e r m in e why tri al co un se l de cl in ed to ob ject to th e jury pr oc ed ur e. A

p e t i t io ne r is en ti tl ed to an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on a § 22 55 m ot io n “ [u ]nle ss t h e

m ot io n an d th e fil es a nd reco rd s of th e cas e co nc lu si ve ly sh ow th at th e pr is on er is

e n t it le d to no rel ie f.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (b ). Bu t “ no he ari ng is req ui red wh e r e t h e

cl ai m is in ad eq ua te on it s fa ce.” New , 65 2 F .3d at 9 54 (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

“ The St ri ckl an d te st

. . . i s an ob jecti ve o n e ; a s lo ng as co un se l pe rfo rm ed as

a co m pe te nt l a w ye r w o u ld

, hi s or he r de ta il ed su bjec ti ve reas on in g is be si de th e

po in t.” Co

fs k e v

. U n i t ed St at es , 29 0 F.3 d 43 7, 44 4 (1 st Ci r. 20 02 ); se e Th oma s v.

Var ne r , 42 8 F.3 d 49 1, 50 0- 01 & n.1 0 (3 d Ci r. 20 05 ); Ch an dl er v. Uni te d St at es , 21 8

F.3 d 13 05

, 13 15 & nn

. 16 -1 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ) (en ba nc ); Bon in v. Ca ld er on , 59 F.3 d

81 5, 83 8 (9 th Ci r. 19 95 ). “ The rel e v a n t q u e s t io n is no t whe th er co un se l’s ch oi ces

were s tra te gi c, bu t wh et he r th ey were re as on ab le .” Roe v. Flo re s- Ort eg a , 52 8 U.S.

47 0, 48 1 (2 00 0)

. I n l i g h t of th e ci rcu it pr eced en t in Lee an d Dar de n , it was

ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le fo r tri al co un se l to acq ui es ce in th e di st ric t co ur t’s jury

pr oc ed ur e. As in Bro wn v. Uni te d St at es , 31 1 F .3d 87 5, 87 8 (8t h Cir. 20 02 ), whe re

a m ov an t un su cces sf

ul ly at ta ck ed c o u ns el ’s pe rfo rm an ce fo r fai li ng to an ti ci pa te
App re nd i v. New Jer

se y , 53 0 U.S. 46 6 (2 00 0)

, no ev id en ti ary he ari ng was ne ces sa ry

to res ol ve th e cl ai m

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-