The H onorab le Phil ip P. Si m on of the U nit ed Stat es D is tr ic t 1 Co urt f or the N orther n D is tr ic t ofIndiana, s it ti ng b y d es ignat i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2766 J EFFR EYW HIT E , Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v . D ONA LD G AETZ, Act i ngW ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 07- 2112

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Chief Ju dge

. A RGUED O CTOBER5, 2009

— D ECIDED D ECE MBE R 21, 2009

Befo re E VANSa nd S YKES, Cir cu i tJudges , a nd S I MO N , D istrict Judge. 1 S I MO N , D i s t r i ctJudg e . When a tr i alj udg e l o o k s o ut ove r the c ou rt ro om and see s no o ne si tti ng the re , i t pr ese n t s a p r a c t i c a l pr o b l e m w h e n h e o r s h e i s t r y i n gt o c o m-2 N o. 08

- 2766 ple te j u ry se l ecti on. I l l i noi s deal s with thi s probl em with a “ byst ander” veni re st atute wh i ch author i zes the j ud ge to o r derthe local s he r i fft o r o und u p pe o pl e an d b r i ng the m t o c o ur ts o tha tj ur y s e l e c t i on can b e c o mpl e t e d. Thi s pr o c e s s wa s us e d t o s e l e c t the fi na l j ur o r i n the tr i al of Jeff re y W hi te i n w hi ch he was co nvi cted o ffi rs t degr ee m ur der

. I n thi s appe alfr o m the de ni alo fa habe as c o r pus peti ti on brought pursuant t o 28 U
. S. C. §225 4, W hi te cl ai m s that the way i n w hi ch the byst ander v eni re w as selected viol ated his cons titution al r ight to h a v e h is j ury s e l e c t e d fr o m a f a i r c r o s s s e c t i o n o fth e c o mm u n i t y . He se ek s a ne w tr i al

. The di st r i ctj udg e den i ed th e pet i ti o n, a n d w e a ffi r m. D uring j ury select ion of W h it e ’s tri al, after ten j urors ha d b ee n s ea te d , th e poo l o fpr o spe ct i ve j ur o r s was e xh au st ed . On e o ft h e t w o re m ain in g s lot s w as ev en tu ally fi l l ed by a m em bero fthe or i gi nal j ury pooland the selectio n oft h at j u ro r is n otin d isp u te in t h is a p p ea l. B u t in or der to fi l l the fi nal se at the t ri alj ud ge i nvoke d I l l i noi s’ sta nd by j urorst atute wh i ch pro vi des: W he n by reason of ch a lle ng e in the selection of a j ur y f o r the t r i alo fa ny c au se , o r b y reaso n o fthe su ddens i ckn ess orabs en ce o fa ny j ur o r f o r a ny cause, the re gul arpaneli s e xhaus ted, the cour t m ay dir ect the s heri ffto su m m on a suffi ci ent num bero f person s ha vingthe qua l i fi ca ti o ns o fj ur o r s to fi l l the p an el forthe pend i ng tr i al, but up on o bj ecti on by ei th erpa r tyt o the c au se t o the s he r i ffs um m o ni ng a su ffi ci en t numbero fpe r so ns t o fi l l the pa ne l, the cour t s hal l appoi nt a s p ecialbai l i ffto sum m on su c hp er so n . . . .N o. 08

- 2766 3

So m e of these facts com e from the state cou rt trial tran scrip t. 2 W h i t e fi l e d a m ot i on, obj e c t e d t o b y th e S t a t e , a s k i n g th a twe take j ud ic ial noti ce ofthe s tat e c ourt t ri al tr ansc ri pt. That m o tion is G RANTED . W e agr ee thatj udi c i al no t i c e i s appr opriat e because W hit e re lied on the tr ansc ri pts in hi s habeas peti ti on before the dist ri ctcourt, t he Il li nois Ap pell ate Co urt re l i ed o n the m aft er both pa rt i es c i t ed the m i n the i r b ri ef s , an d the y w ou ld assist this C ou rt. S eeF ed . R u le A p p . P . 10 (e)(2 ). 70 5 Ill. C om p . Sta t. 30 5/ 13 . U n d er t h e a u th or ity of th is st at u te , th e jud g e d i r ec te d th e s h er iff’s o ffice to rec ru it add i ti onalj u ro rs . The pro cess thatthe sher i ffused was to cal l up var i ou s county s up er vi sor s a nd as k them to supp l y peopl e to fi l l out the veni re . W hi te’s co unsel o bj ec te d, b utth e c ou r t r es po nde d tha t i t was up to the sher i ffto deter m in e who w oul d be s um m oned. A l though W hi te’ s co unsel o bj ecte d to the pr oce ss, h e d i d not m ake a re q u es t t h at a s p ec ial b ailiff b e a p p oin te d , as is pe r mi t t e d b y th e s t a t u t e , u n t i l a ft e r th e j u r y w a s a l r e a dy se l ec te d a nd the t r i alwas abo utt o b eg i n. The fi rst b ys tand erj urorwas excused forcause after s t ati ng tha ts he wo r k e d fo r the s he r i ffi n hi s r e c o r ds d ep ar tm en t, an d th at sh e k n ew th e p ro se c u t or s in charg e o fW hi te’ s t ri aland handled s om e paper w or k for W hi te’ s ca se. The next sta nd by j u ro r questi oned w as an 2 i nd i vi dua l n a med Amy Ca r t e r . Ms. Ca r t e r wa s a r e c e pti o ni sta t th e Dec aturPub l i c Bui l di ngCom m is si o n. To su m m o n h er, the s he r i ff’ s o ffi ce c al led her b o ss a sk i ng f orpeopl e who m igh t be i nter est ed i n ser vi ng o n a j ury. H er bo ss then as ked M s. Cart eri fshe w as w i l l i ng to serve, an d sh e said th at sh e w as. A fter a full voir d ire4 N o. 08

- 2766

o fM s . C a r t e r b y b o th th e t r i a l j u d g e a n d th e p a r t i e s, s he w as a c c e pt e d a s a j ur o r b y b o th s i de s . Whi t e n e i ther ch al l en g ed her for c au se no r us ed o ne o fhi s r emai ni ng av ai l ab l e per empto r y c ha l l en g es t o di smi ss he r, a nd th er e is abs ol utel y no thi ng to sugg estthatM s. Cart er w as bi ase d i n any w ay. Befo re address i ng W hi te’ s cl aim , we w i l l br i efl y r evi ew the f acts wh i ch l anded W hi te in thi s m ess . They r ead l i ke a script from Q ue nt in T aren tino. W hite an d tw o ot he rs wer e hi r ed by C orl i ss M cS padde n t o dr i ve t o Ari zo na to pi ckup a l o ad o fmar ij ua na

— 50 p ou n d s in all. M cS padde n g av e W hi te mone y t o b uy the m ar ij ua na , b ut probl em s ar ose w hen W hi te deci ded to ste al th e load i nstea d ofdel i ver i ng i t t o M cSpad d en . G uys who deal in l arge qu an titi es of dru gs d on’t li ke being ripp ed off, and M cSpadden w as no di ff er ent. H e conf ro nted W hi te, pi st o l whi pped hi m , r ano ve r hi s coh ort w i tha c ara nd i ssued a death thr eatto W hi te. A t o ne poi nt, W hi te w as actual l y k i dn appe d a t gunp oi nt and thr eat ened w i th d e a th b y t wo o fMc S p a d d e n ’ s b u d d i e s , T r a v i s Wi l l i a ms a n d An d r e w Mu r p h y . Wh i t e e s c a p e d , b u th e b e c a me co nv i nc ed th at W i l l i ams an d M ur phy wer e w o r k i ng f o r M c S p a d d e n a n d d o i n gh i s d i r t y wo r ki n c o l l e c t i ng on th e d rug d ebt. A ll o f w hich prom p ted W hite to start ca r r y i nga g un. Shor tl y a fterthe ki dn apping, W hi te encounter ed M ur phy f o r a se co nd ti m e at a co unty co ur th o us e, an d M urp hy threat en ed him again. A ccord ing to W hite, he l eft the c o ur tho us e b ut l a t e r r e t ur ne d wi th a f r i e nd a nd they p ro c ee d ed to fol l o w M u rp h y in h is c ar . A s fa te w ou ldN o. 08

- 2766 5 h av e it, M u rp h y w as h ea d in g t o t h e h o m e o f T ra vis W i l l i am s, the othe r ki dn apper. W hen W hi te ar ri ved at W i l l i am s’ house , W i l l i am s a nd M urphy w er e o ut fro nt. W hi te, wh o w as i n the passenge r’ s s ea t, r eached o ut o f the wi ndo w and po i nt ed a g un b ac ko ve r the r o o fo fthe carand shotto w ar ds M urphy and W i l l i am s. One of th e b u l l e t s s t r u c kWi l l i a ms i n the he a d a n d k i l l e d h i m. W h ite w as arr es te d a few d ay s la t e r an d ev en tu ally confess ed to sho oting W i l l i am s. H e s tat ed that he sho t at W i l l i a ms a nd Mur ph y o uto ffe a r . Whi t e c l a i med that he was j ust try in g t o scar e them and that he di d not m ean t o shoo t a nybody. The j ur y c o nv i ct ed W hi te o ffi r stde g r ee murde r a nd he was sent enced to twenty- ei ght y ear s o fi m pri sonm ent. The I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courtaffi rm ed the j ud gm ent. P eople v. Wh ite, 8 19 N. E. 2d 12 39 ( I l l

. App. Ct
. 2 00 4)
. The pri nci pal ar gum ents on a pp ealco ncer ned the m an ner i n w hi ch the bys tander j uror s were sel ecte d. Fi rs t, W hi te ar gued that the s heri ff w as not cor re ctl y a pp oi nted to sum m on the by sta nd erj uror s. The co urt m ade qui ck w or k o fthatar gum ent fi nd i ng tha t the I l l i noi s s tatute au th or ize d th e sh er iff to su m m on ad d itio n a l ju r or s. Id. at 12 45 . W h ite t h en arg u ed th at a sp ec ial b ailiff sh ou ld ha ve b ee n a ppo i nt ed to find by st an derj ur o r s, b utthe c o u rt found that his requ est for a sp ecial bail iff

— co m i ng afterthe j ury had al re ady be en se l ecte d

— w as too l ate
. Fi nal l y, the cour t f ound that the tr i al cour t did n ot abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n fi n d i n gth a tth e s h e r i ff’ s me th o d o fs u mm o n i n g j u r o r s wa s wi th i n th e d i s c r e t i o n g i v e n t o t he sher i ffunder the st atute
. Id. a t1 2 4 5

- 4 7
. Whi t e fi l e d a peti ti on f orl eave to appealto the I lli noi s S up re m e Cour t, b utthe p e t i t i o n wa s de ni e d.6 N o. 08

- 2766 W hi te then fi l ed a pro se post- convi cti on peti ti on, wh i ch th e Ci r cui t Cou r t o fM ac o n Co unty de ni ed as “ f r ivo l o us an d p at en tly w ith ou t m e rit .” (A . 109 ). Th e Illino is A p p ell ate Courtaffi rm ed, and the I l l in oi s S up re m e Cour t l ate r den i e d Wh i t e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rl e a v e t o a p p e a l

. Wh i t e ne xt m ov ed on to f edera l co urt w here he fi l ed a pro se Pe t i t i o n f o r a Wr i to fH a b e a s Co r pu s p ur s ua ntt o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 254 i n the CentralDis tr i ct ofI l l i noi s. H e r ai sed fi ve iss u es . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied th e p et itio n, an d th is co ur t g r an te d a c er ti fi ca te o fa ppea l ab i l i tyl i m i ted to the i ssue ofwh etherW hi te’ s S i xth A m endm ent r i gh t to a fair an d im p ar t i a l ju ry w as vio lat ed by th e m an n er in wh i c h th e s h e r i f fsummo n e d th e b y s t a n d e r j u r o r s . ( A. 235)
. The di stric t j ud ge re aso ned that ther e was no Si xth Am en dm en t vi olatio n b y ha vingthe s he r i ffs el ec t th e b ys ta n d er j u ro rs sin c e t h e s h er iff w as n otinv olv ed in W hi te’ s i nvest i gat i on a nd the county supervi sor s whom he c al l ed upo n t o g etthe bystan d erj ur o r s ha d no i nt er es t i n the pr o se cut i o n. T h e firs t is su e is w h et h er W h ite fair l y p r es en te d h is f ede r alc o ns ti tu ti o na l c l ai m r eg ar di ngthe selec ti o n o fthe st an dby v en i r e to the s ta te c o ur ts
. A f ederal c o ns ti tu
ti onalcl ai m i s pro cedural l y b ar re d i fa peti ti onerf ai l s t o f ai rl y pr ese nt thatcl ai m i n one c om p lete r ound ofst ate c ou rtrev iew
. B a ldw in v . Reese, 541 U
. S. 27, 29, 30-31 ( 2004 ). To de t e r mi ne wh e the r a p e t i ti one r f a i r l y p r e s e nt e d a cl ai m befor e the st ate co urts , thi s Cour t lo oks to w hetherthe peti ti oner : (1) rel i ed on r el evantfedera l cas es applying co nsti tu ti onalanal ysi s; ( 2) r el i ed on s tat e ca ses apply in g fe deralco nsti tuti onalanal ysi s t o a s i m i l ar factu al si tu ation; ( 3) asserted the c lai m i n term s so pa r-N o. 08

- 2766 7 ti cul ar a s t o cal l to m i nd a speci fi c co nsti tuti onalr i ght; an d ( 4) a ll eged a pa tt ern o ff ac ts tha t i s wel l wi th i n the m ain st re am of fed er al c on st itu tio n al litig at ion
. E ll sworth v. Lev enh agen , 248 F. 3d 634, 63 9 ( 7th C ir. 2001)
. Our ta sk i s t o deter m i ne i n pract ical ter m s whether the s tat e cou rts w e r e su ffici en tly al erted to the n atu re of W hite’s fed er al c on st itu tio n al c laim

. Id

. W hite’s argu m en ts before the Il linois A p p ell ate C ou rt an d in t h e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtd ea lt e x c l u s i ve ly w i th the appli cati on o f the I l l i noi s by sta nd erst atute
. W hi te di d no t r el y o n a ny fede r alc o ns ti tu tional pro vi si o n a nd ci ted to no case s em plo yi ng a const i tuti ona l an al ysi s. N ordi d he r el y o n any sta te case s a pp l yi ng a f edera l con stitut ional analysis to a si m il ar factu al sit u ation. So the fi rs t t w o f acto rs in d ec i ding w hetherhi s cl ai m was fair ly p re se n te d to t h e s ta te co u rt s w eig h h ea vily agains t W hi t e . A nd this m uc h h e agrees. ( A p p ell an t’s B r. at27 .) A s t o the thi rd f acto r, W hi te’ s cl ai m s do not bring to mi nd a “ s pe c i fi c c o ns t i t ut i o na l r i g ht

. ” W hi te c o nt e nd s r a the r b r o a dl y tha t hi s c l a i ms b r i ng t o mi nd S i xth Am e nd

m en t an d Due P r o ce ss c o nc erns . Buthe pr o vi des no per su as i ve a utho r i tyt o s uppo r t th ata ss er ti o n. And W hi te ’ s pr i o r b r i efi ngi n the I l l i no i s c ou rt s co nt ains no r efer en ce s to fede r alc as e l aw, fede r als ta tutes, o r a ny part ofthe U ni ted S tat es C onsti tuti on. The f ocus of W hi te ’ s ar g um en ts b efo r e the I l l i no i s co ur ts was o n the al l ege d i m properappli cati on o fthe I l l i noi s by stan d er st atut e, not onW hi te ’ s S i xth Am en dm en t an d Due Pro cess r i ghts. Thus, hi s arg um ents pri orto hi s a pp eal8 N o. 08

- 2766 to the Ce nt r a l Di s t r i c to fI l l i no i s di d n o ti nv o k e federa l l aw . W hi l e W hi te did m enti on hi s “r i ght to a f air trial bef or e a n i m partial j ury, ” he f ai l ed to expl i ci tl y invoke the federa l r i ght he now seek s v i n dica ted

— the r i ght t o h av e a veni re thati s cho sen fro m a f ai r cro ss sect i on of t h e c om m u n ity . In st ea d , th at refe re n c e w a s t o h is cl ai m under the I l l i noi s by sta nd er s tatute. U nd erthes e ci r c ums t a nc e s , a n i nn o c uo us r e f e r e nc e t o a “ r i g ht t o an i m parti alj ury” does notcal l to m i nd the fed er alr i ght t o ha ve a v en i r e se l ec te d fr o m a f ai r c ross sec ti o n o fthe c om m u n ity
. SeeBa ldwin , 54 1 U.S
. at33 (a m er e r efer ence to “ i ne ff ec ti ve a ss i st an ce o fb o tht r i alc o ur t an d appell ate c ou rtco unsel ” di d not pro perl y invoke f ede r all aw b ec au se a s ta te c lai m c ou l d a r i se wi ththe sam e langu age). A s to t h e f ou rth factor, W hite h as no t all eged a pat tern off acts thati s wel l withi n the m ai nstr eam o ffedera l const i tuti onall i ti gat i on. W hi te ci tes to a s eri es of Suprem e Cour t ca ses i n an at tem pt to sh ow t h at hi s ca se is in th e m ain st re am of co n st itu tio n al litig at ion
. See D uren v. M issou ri, 439 U
. S. 357 (1979); Cas t ane da v. Part i da , 430 U .S. 48 2 (1 97 7); Taylo rv. Lo ui s i ana , 419 U
. S. 522 (1975 ). Bu t these ar e in no way si m i l arto the f acts of t h is c as e. D ure n an d Ta ylo r h e l d t h at th e s ys te m at ic excl usi on o fwom en fro m a veni re vi ol ate d the f ai r cro ss se ction r equi r emento fthe S i xth Am en dm en t. And Cast e ne da hel d that a sy ste m thatse l ecte d j uror s i n a way that disc ri m i nated ag ai nst M exi can- A m er i cans was like w ise u n c on st itu tio n al. T h es e fac ts ar e co m p let ely d ifferent from the facts of th is c a s e w he re the sh eriff

— in tr yi ng to fulfi l l hi s o bl i gat i on under the I l l i noi s by sta nd erN o. 08

- 2766 9 veni re st atute

— cal l ed upon gov er nm ent e m plo yee s t o r o und o uta s m al l po r ti o n o fthe v en i r e. The r e w as no sy st emat i c ex cl us i o n ofa ny o ne he r e, b uti ns te ad th e inclus ion of govern m en tal em p loyees. So this p a t t ern off acts i s no t withi n the m ai nstr eam o fco nsti tutio nal l i ti gat i on a s s et out i n c ases l i ke D uren , Taylo r, a nd Cast e ne da

. I n s um, Whi t e di d n o tf a i r l y p r e s e nth i s c o ns t i t ut i onal cl ai m to the I l l i noi s co urts
. H i s be efi n the sta te cour ts w as w i th the m an ner i n w hi ch the I l l i noi s by sta nd er sta t ut e wa s h a nd l e d b y the s he r i ff

. He c i t e d n o fe de ra l c on st itu tio n a l c a se s, an d th er e w as n ot h in g a b ou t h is ar g um en ts i n the s ta te c o ur ts tha t w ou ld ca l l t o min d the s peci fi c co nsti tuti onalr i ght that he now sa ys w as vio lat ed . For t h es e re as on s, h is c laim is p ro c ed u ra lly b a r r e d. E ven if w e w ere t o look p ast th e proc ed ura l bar, W hite’s cl ai m f ai l s. U nd er28 U
. S. C. § 2 254(d ), a w ri t o fhabea s cor pu s ca n be gr anted o nl y i fthe st ate co urt adj ud i cati on “ ( 1) r esul ted i n a deci si on t h at w as contr ar y t o, o r i nvol ved an unre aso n abl e a pp l i cati on o f, cl ear l y e stabl i shed Feder allaw, as deter m i ned by the S up re m e Cour t o f the Unite d Sta tes ; o r (2) r esul ted i n a deci si on that was b as ed on an u n re as o n a b le d et er m in at ion of th e fa c ts in l i ght o fthe evi dence pres ented in the Sta te cour t pr oc e e di ng. ” Id

. The U ni ted S tat es Suprem e Cour t has neve r hel d that a pro cedure to c reate a sta nd by veni re vi ol ate s the defendant’s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts. So the o pini on o f the I l l i noi s a pp el l ate co urt w as nei therco ntra ryto , n o r i n v o l v e d a n u n r e a s o nab l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f, S u p r e me10 N o. 08

- 2766 C ou rtp re c ed en t. Se eWr ightv. Van Pa tten , 55 2 U.S
. 12 0, 125 (2008 ). W hi te a tt empts t o c l ear th i s hur dl e bydi r ec tingo ur att enti on t o tw o ofthe Suprem e Cour t c ases di scusse d abov e

— D uren v. M issou ri, 4 3 9 U. S
. 3 5 7( 1 9 7 9 ) a nd Taylo rv. Lou i s i ana , 41 9 U.S
. 52 2 ( 1975 )
. But nei thero fthes e case s e ven co m e cl ose to hol ding that the pr oc ess used he r e to se l e c tthe s t a nd b y v e ni r e v i o l a t e s the S i xth Am e nd

m en t. A ga in, D uren a nd Taylo rinv olv ed th e s ys te m at ic excl usi on o fwom en fro m a veni re . W hi te conte nd s that t h o s e c a s e s a r e a n a l o g o u s b e c a u s e g o v e r n m e n te mplo yee s

— the g ro up thatwas sel ecte d by the she ri ffto be in t h e ven ire

— a r e a di s t i nc t i v e g r o up tha ti s a ut om at ica lly b i a s e d in fav or of th e g ov er n m en t, re su ltin g in anu nr e pr e s e nt a t i v e a nd u nf a i r v e ni r e . Bu tWhi t e c i t es no a utho r i tyf o r hi s br o ad co nt en ti o n tha t g o ve r nm en t empl oyees a r e al way s bi as ed i n f av o r o fthe g o ve r nm en t, an d it’s d ifficu lt t o s ee w h y t h at w o u ld n ec es sa rily be the cas e. I n f act, ther e is n othi ng to sugg estthat M s. Ca r te r, the o ne j ur o r who was se l ec te d fr o m the sta nd by veni re , w as b iase d. She w as not chal l enged f or c au se by e i t h e r sid e n or d id W h ite u se on e o f h is r emai nin g pe r empto r y c ha l l en g es t o s tr i k e he r fr o m the j ury. S o th e co m pari son ofthi s ca se to case s l i ke D ure n a nd Taylo ri s no t ve r y a pt. Tho se c as es a ddr es s th e sys tem ati c exc l usion ofa gr oup ofpeopl e ( w om en) wh i ch l e d t o a v e ni r e tha twa s n o tr e pr e s e nt a t i v e o fsoci e t y . By c on tr ast thi s ca se i nvol ved the sys tem ati c i nc l us i on of a gr oup o f p eople ( gov er nm ent work er s) to fi l l o ut a sm allportion of th e ven ire th at d id n ot resu lt in a ven ire unrepre senta ti ve ofso ci ety
.N o. 08

- 2766 11 N either D uren nor Taylo r( n o r a n y o th e r S u p r e me Court case ci ted byW hi te) ad dress the questi on pre sente d he re

— w hethera vio lati on o fthe f ai r- cro ss- sect i on r equir em ent m ay be b ase d on the m i sappli cation o f a bysta nd erve ni re st atute
. S o the s tat e co urt’ s deci si on t o rej ect W hi te’s j ury select ion clai m w as ne ither con trary to, noran unre aso nabl e a pp l i cati on o f, cl ear l y e stabl i shed Suprem e Cour t pr ecedent. W h ite als o p oin ts u s to tw o c as es fro m th e E igh th C irc u it to supp or t hi s co nsti tuti onalar gu m en t. Se eAnde rs on v. Fey, 715 F.2d 13 04 (8t h C ir. 19 83 ); He ns on v. W yrick, 63 4 F.2 d 10 80 (8t h C ir. 19 80 ). Ande rs on i nvol ved a si tuati on w h er e a sh er iff w h o h ad h an d led th e c ri m i n al in ve st ig a t i o n s e l e c t e d the b y s t a nd e r j ur o r s ; a nd He ns on i nvol ved a sh er i ffwho c ho se o nl y hi s ac qua i nt an ce s f o r the ve n ire . B ot h c o u r ts h eld th at w h er e t h e s h er iff p ar tic ip ates in th e investigation and selects bysta nd er j urors base d on subj ecti ve cri ter i a, the defe nd ant’ s r ight to a f a i r t r i a l i s v i o l a t e d. There ar e a num bero fpro bl em s with W h i te’ s r el i ance o n Ande rs on a nd H enson . Fi rs t, bo th were deci ded pri or to the Antit er ro ri sm and Effecti ve D ea th Penal ty A ct ( AE DPA) o f1 99 6. As di sc us sed abo ve , the AEDPA re quir es W hi te to est abl i sh thatth e s tat e co urt opi ni on w as co n tr ar y t o c lea rly es ta b lish ed fed er al la w , a s determ ined by th e Sup rem e C o urt o f t he U nited Sta tes. 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4(d )(1)
. Wr ight, 55 2 U.S
. at12 5; C a rey v. M usl adin , 54 9 U
. S. 70, 77 (2006); Li e b e r m an v. Thom as , 50 5 F
. 3d 665, 67 2 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Sc ha ff v. Sn yd er, 19 0 F
. 3d 5 13, 53 0 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9) ( dec l i ni ngt o c o ns i derSe co nd Ci r cui t pr ec ede nt12 N o. 08

- 2766 b ec au se a “h ab ea s p et itio n e r m u st su p p or t h is c laim w i th a Suprem e Cour t deci si on that cl ear l y e sta b l i shes th e prop ositi on ess en tial to his po siti on” ). B ut ev en i f He ns e n a nd Ande rs on wer e so m eh o w bi ndi ng o n us , the y a r e d isti ng ui sh ab l e i n a ny e ve nt
. The sher i ffwh o sel ecte d the bys tanders i n thos e ca ses had an i nt erest in th e o ut com e of th e proc eed ings. Th e she riff’ s offic e w as th e in ve st i g a t in g a ge n c y in th os e c as es , an d in H e ns on the sher i ffactual l y s ought out hi s a cquai ntances to b e i n the j ur y po o l

. The r e was no su ch bi as he r e. As th e dist ri ct c ourtpoi nted out, the sher iff w as not i nvol ved wi ththe i nv es ti g at i o n, a nd the r e wer e no f ac ts s ho wi ng th atthe s he r i ffwas biased whe n h e r ec r ui te d the stan d by v en ire. W hite claim s tha t the sheriffw as “inh erentl y b i ase d” aga i nst hi m bec au se he i s the chi efl aw en forcem en t officer i n th e cou nt y. B ut w h en the sh eriff d oe s n otp ar tic ip at e in th e in ve st iga tio n of th e c rim e, h is in st it u tio n al in te re st be c om es m or e a tt en u at ed

. O ’N e al v . D el o , 44 F .3d 65 5, 66 2 (8 th C ir. 19 95 ); Hol tv . W yr ick, 649 F.2d 543, 546 (8th Cir. 1981). I n sum , the sher i ffexer ci sed hi s r esponsibi l i ty und er th e Illino is b ys ta n d er st at u te by r o u n d in g ou t a sm all p ortion of th e ven ire

— enough to sel ect the fi nal j uror

—by cal l i ng upon superv i sors in go ver nm ent o ffi ces to fu rn ish p ot en tia l j u ro rs . Th e jur or w h o w as u ltim at ely sel ecte d h ad no i nter esti n the case and w as i n no way b i a s e d

. Wh i t e h a s f a i l e d t o p o i n tu s t o a n y S u p r e me C ou rt cases that hold that the sh eriff’ s selec t io n of a smal l po r ti o n o fthe v en i r e m ak es th e e nt i r ety o fthe veni re nota f air cr oss se cti on o fso ci ety
. A nd the EighthN o. 08

- 2766 13 Cir cui t case s that he re l i es on ar e a ll di sti ngui shabl e. W h i t e ’ s r i g h t t o a n i mp a r t i a l j u r y s e l e c t e d f r o m a r e pre senta ti ve c ro ss sect i on o fthe com m unity was notvi ol a t e d. W e A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

12- 21- 09