Document: 537 U.S. 3 EARLY, WARDEN, ET AL.v.PACKER. No. 01-1765. Supreme Court of United States. Decided November 4, 2002. A California jury convicted respondent of, inter alia, murder and attempted murder. On direct appeal, the State Appeal rejected his claim that trial judge coerced deadlocked into continuing deliberations. The Federal District dismissed respondent's subsequent federal habeas petition but granted a certificate appealability on question whether state violated Fourteenth Amendment rights by coercing rendering verdict. Ninth Circuit reversed ground instructed to grant writ. Held: Circuit's decision exceeds limits imposed review 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), which forecloses relief any adjudicated merits in state-court proceedings unless adjudication resulted (1) was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application clearly established law, as determined States, (2) based determination facts light evidence presented proceedings. erred believing court's "failure cite" controlling precedent renders its "contrary to" law. Awareness this Court's cases is not even required, so long neither reasoning nor result contradicts them. also charging did apply totality-of-the-circumstances test required Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 231. Finally, finding our holdings Jenkins 380 445 (per curiam), States Gypsum Co., 438 422, were supervisory power over courts constitutional grounds, applicable Because erroneously found Appeal's because it at least reasonable conclude there no coercion here, effect must stand. Certiorari granted; 291 F.3d 569, reversed. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT. PER CURIAM. 1 Appeals for William Packer after concluding jury's Hill, 569 (2002). we certiorari reverse. 2 * one count second-degree murder, two counts robbery, assault with deadly weapon, firearm. It acquitted him 10 other counts. path guilty verdicts attempted-murder charges easy one. After hours deliberation, had returned sealed verdict forms all charges, juror Eve Radcliff sent note requesting be from due "`health problems.'" F. 3d, 573. then met alone Radcliff, who explained "`because seriousness I can't make snap decisions.... beginning feel little burned out.'" Ibid. asked if she could "`hold out just bit longer,'" when agreed replied: "`I really appreciate it. Otherwise, they have start deliberations again another person.'" (emphasis deleted). 4 next day, foreman stating "`we can longer deliberate,'" "`Eve does appear able understand rules given you,'" "`nearly my fellow jurors questio[n] her ability reason,'" will "`hung ... person's inability reason desire unreasonable.'" called court-room, and, presence attorneys defendant, read aloud. deliberating. replied "`just having same conversation issue time again.'" Id., 574. made following statement jury: 5 "`The has right do that, you know. They disagree everybody else. But deliberate. deliberate follow laws them.'" 6 what latest vote was, told reveal side number votes. indicated last been 11 1. further would helpful, gave instruction 7 "`What — like think instructions law arrive decision. there, elements [sic] those instructions. this? Was proven beyond doubt? This element, element? If find unanimously them either charge.'" 8 At point, defense counsel objected improperly "`instructing . their manner deliberation.'" 574-575. overruled objection continued follows: 9 "`Ladies Gentlemen, only thing I'm going tell now is; once again, you, you'll look up paraphrasing it, using correct words: you're sole judges facts. You determine accept your own you.'" 575. excused day. day off, resumed Friday. Once asking jury. complained about "`feeling[s] distrust disrespect jurors,'" said reached point anger, don't believe objective.'" chambers, outside attorneys, responded "trying," satisfaction others. 576. thanked room. Then briefly foreman, assured indeed Tuesday, count, morning charge. 12 Respondent appealed conviction California, Second Appellate District, arguing comments coercive denied process fair impartial unlike prohibits giving so-called Allen 164 492 (1896), charge is, specifically urges minority give weight majority's views. People Gainer, 19 Cal.3d 835, 852, 566 P.2d 997, 1006 (1977), held may "(1) encourages consider numerical division preponderance opinion forming reexamining views issues before them; states implies fails agree case necessarily retried." 13 appellate court, applying claim. "[T]here nothing improper," said, "in urging matter view reaching agreement[,] language used coerce particular type Accordingly, court deny rights." App. Pet. Cert. H-15 H-16 (citations omitted). remaining challenges conviction, declined review. 14 sought writ corpus Central California. That petition, ground, convictions. California's Attorney General petitioned certiorari. II 15 When petitioner's proceedings, 2254(d) claim: 16 States; "(2) proceeding." 17 jury-coercion appeal correctly recognized therefore applicable. two, possibly three, reasons. We none correct. 18 First, observed "failed cite much less precedents." F.3d, 578. meant suggest such citation error. precedents "applies rule governing set forth cases" "confronts are materially indistinguishable nevertheless arrives different precedent." Williams Taylor, 529 362, 405-406 (2000). Avoiding these pitfalls require indeed, awareness cases, disapproval failure especially puzzling since cited instead decisions impose greater restrictions avoidance potentially Compare supra, P.2d, 1006, 501. Second, charged totality circumstances [v. 231 (1988)]." so, concluded, "simply mentioned three incidents analysis," consider" "critical facts," cumulative impact" significant facts, "[did] mention analysis." 578-579, n. 10. With regard point: fact back learning split succinctly described. See id., 579, focused analysis upon "three incidents" entirely acceptable (as said) constituted "[t]he essence Packer's complaints" regarding coercion. H-15. many incidents, including facts" consider," judge's knowledge dissenting prior instructing keep deliberating, H-14, foreman's note, name, ibid. contention taken trouble recite strains credulity. certain adequate (and hence discussion); say exaggeration. There moreover, support "cumulative recorded events. Compliance (1988), demand formulary actions inactions noncoercive "individually cumulatively." suffices import opinion. 20 Third last, faulted "`there improper [the matter] agreement verdict.'" 579. both (1965) 422 (1978), construed prohibit pressing some verdict, "`a Neither Co. relevant 2254(d)(1) determination, sets convictions prosecutions, purported interpret provision Constitution. enough defeat "clearly established." 239, (citation omitted), however, removed lingering doubt cases' stated: "[O]ur ruling courts, grounds. Constitution, rather relied involving exercise powers." (The true Co.) off table far concerned, relying nonconstitutional decisions. 21 Having apply" 579 (a phrase repeatedly substitutes more demanding requirement 2254(d)(1): law), proceeded address "whether Appeal's] error substantial injurious verdict." inquiry proper first (pursuant standard) not. By mistakenly making proceeding simple "error" inquiry, evaded 2254(d)'s subjected merely erroneous, "an application" added). Even majority (Judge Silverman dissented) not, means 22 23 judgment 24 ordered.

Category: 0