Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/464/114/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:43:33+00:00

Document:
During voir dire prior to the trial in a California court of respondent and others on various charges, including murder and conspiracy allegedly involving the Black Panther Party, a prospective juror (who became a juror) stated that she had no personal knowledge of violent crimes, and that she did not associate the Black Panther Party with any form of violence. However, evidence was introduced at the trial concerning an unrelated murder by a Black Panther, triggering the juror's recollection that the victim of the unrelated murder had been the juror's childhood friend and causing her to go twice to the judge's chambers to tell him of her personal acquaintance with the victim. On each occasion, she assured the judge -- who made no record of the conversations and did not inform the defendants or their counsel about them -- that her disposition of the case would not be affected. After respondent was convicted, his counsel learned of the ex parte communications between the judge and the juror and moved for a new trial. After a hearing at which the juror testified that her recollection of her friend's death did not affect her impartiality, the judge denied the motion, concluding that the communications lacked significance, and that respondent suffered no prejudice therefrom. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that, although the communications constituted federal constitutional error, they were harmless "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, respondent subsequently obtained habeas corpus relief in the Federal District Court, which held, inter alia, that the ex parte communications violated respondent's constitutional rights to be present during critical stages of the proceedings and to be represented by counsel, and that automatic reversal was necessary because the absence of a contemporaneous record made intelligent application of the harmless error standard impossible. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis that an unrecorded ex parte communication between trial judge and juror could never be harmless error.
parte communication relates to some aspect of the trial, the trial judge generally should disclose the communication to counsel for all parties, but the prejudicial effect of a failure to do so can normally be determined by a post-trial hearing. The substance of the communication and its effect on juror impartiality are questions of historical fact, and, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the state courts' findings thereon are entitled to a presumption of correctness, and must be deferred to by the federal courts in the absence of "convincing evidence" to the contrary. The post-trial hearing in this case created more than adequate support for the finding that the juror's presence on the jury did not prejudice respondent. The lower federal courts should have deferred to this presumptively correct state court finding, and therefore should have found the alleged constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Certiorari granted; 701 F.2d 186, vacated and remanded.
Respondent was one of six inmates involved in a 1971 San Quentin Prison escape that resulted in the death of three prisoners and three corrections officers. The State of California jointly tried respondent and five other prisoners on numerous charges, including murder, conspiracy, and assault. The prosecution attempted to show that the Black Panther Party had organized the escape attempt, and to link respondent to the conspiracy through his membership in that Party. Respondent's defense was that state police had organized the breakout and ambushed the escapees to eliminate an important faction of the Black Panther Party.
police plot. The prosecution sought to impeach this witness by introducing evidence that Pratt was in custody for the 1968 murder of a Santa Monica woman during the entire period at issue. This evidence triggered juror Fagan's recollection of the murder of a childhood friend, who was the woman Pratt had been convicted of killing.
Upon hearing the evidence about Pratt, juror Fagan twice went to the trial judge's chambers to tell him of her personal acquaintance with Pratt's 1968 murder victim. She told him that she feared that she might cry if the 1968 murder were explored further at trial. The judge asked her on each occasion whether her disposition of the case would be affected. She assured him that it would not. The judge told her not to be concerned, and that the matter probably would not be mentioned again. He made no record of either conversation, and he did not inform the defendants or their counsel about them.
Counsel for respondent subsequently learned of the ex parte communications between judge and juror and moved for a new trial. At a hearing on the motion, juror Fagan testified that she had not remembered her friend's death during voir dire, and that her subsequent recollection did not affect her ability impartially to judge respondent's innocence or guilt. She admitted telling other jurors that she personally knew Pratt's 1968 murder victim, but denied making any disparaging remarks about the Black Panther Party. The trial judge concluded that the ex parte communications "lacked any significance," and that respondent suffered no prejudice therefrom. See App. C to Pet. for Cert. 22. Accordingly, he denied the motion for new trial.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. It found the ex parte communication to be federal constitutional error that was harmless "beyond a reasonable doubt" because the jury's deliberations, as a whole, were unbiased. Id. at 28-35. The California Supreme Court denied review.
Respondent then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court. The District Court issued the writ, ruling that the ex parte communications between judge and juror violated both respondent's right to be present during all critical stages of the proceedings and his right to be represented by counsel. 543 F.Supp. 757 (ND Cal.1982). Furthermore, the District Court held that automatic reversal was necessary because the absence of a contemporaneous record made intelligent application of the harmless error standard impossible. Alternatively, it concluded that a post-trial hearing could not establish that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, it found that respondent's conviction had to be vacated because of the state court's failure to hold a contemporaneous hearing about, or to make a contemporaneous record of, the ex parte communication. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the basis that an unrecorded ex parte communication between trial judge and juror can never be harmless error. [Footnote 1] Judgment order reported at 701 F.2d 186 (1983).
the fundamental importance of [these rights], we have implicitly recognized the necessity for preserving society's interest in the administration of criminal justice. Cases involving [such constitutional] deprivations are [therefore] subject to the general rule that remedies should be tailored to the injury suffered . . . , and should not unnecessarily infringe on competing interests."
"does not require a new trial every time a juror has been placed in a potentially compromising situation . . . , [because] it is virtually impossible to shield jurors from every contact or influence that might theoretically affect their vote."
to mitigate constitutional error, if any, that has occurred. See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, supra, at 449 U. S. 365; Rogers v. United States, supra, at 422 U. S. 40. Post-trial hearings are adequately tailored to this task. See, e.g., Smith v. Phillips, supra, at 455 U. S. 218-219, and n. 8; Remmer v. United States, 347 U. S. 227, 347 U. S. 230 (1954).
The final decision whether the alleged constitutional error was harmless is one of federal law. Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 386 U. S. 20-21 (1967). Nevertheless, the factual findings arising out of the state courts' post-trial hearings are entitled to a presumption of correctness. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539 (1981). The substance of the ex parte communications and their effect on juror impartiality are questions of historical fact entitled to this presumption. Thus, they must be determined, in the first instance, by state courts and deferred to, in the absence of "convincing evidence" to the contrary, by the federal courts. See Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422, 459 U. S. 431-432 (1983). Here, both the State's trial and appellate courts concluded that the jury's deliberations, as a whole, were not biased. This finding of "fact" -- on a question the state courts were in a far better position than the federal courts to answer -- deserves a "high measure of deference," Sumner v. Mata, 455 U. S. 591, 455 U. S. 598 (1982), and may be set aside only if it "lack[s] even fair support' in the record." Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. at 459 U. S. 432. The absence of a contemporaneous recording will rarely deprive the finding of "even `fai[r] suppor[t]' in the record." See ibid.
Petitioners have apparently conceded, in both federal and state court, that the undisclosed ex parte communications established federal constitutional error. See Pet. for Cert. 29-31. We acknowledge that the trial judge promptly should have notified counsel for all parties after the juror approached him. Whether the error was of constitutional dimension in this case is not before us. Because we find that no actual prejudice was shown, we assume, without deciding, that respondent's constitutional rights to presence and counsel were implicated in the circumstances of this case.
JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that the only constitutional right implicated in this case is a possible due process right to a midtrial hearing on the subject of the juror's impartiality. See post at 464 U. S. 126 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). Had the State raised the underlying constitutional right as an issue in the courts below and in the petition for certiorari, this approach might merit consideration. But the case came to us alleging harmless violations of the right to be present during all critical stages of the proceedings and the right to be represented by counsel, and we therefore analyze only that challenge. These rights, as with most constitutional rights, are subject to harmless error analysis, see, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 449 U. S. 361, 449 U. S. 364-365 (1981) (right to counsel); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 291 U. S. 114-118 (1934) (right to presence), unless the deprivation, by its very nature, cannot be harmless. See, e.g., Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963).
Thus, we have refused, on facts more troublesome than these, to find inherent bias in a verdict when a state trial court determined "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a juror's out-of-court action did not influence the verdict. In Smith v. Phillips, 455 U. S. 209 (1982), a criminal defendant contended that he had been denied due process because, during his state court trial, one of the jurors applied to the prosecutor's office for a job as an investigator. The application was not brought to the parties' attention until sometime after the verdict was rendered. The state court held a post-trial hearing and, relying on the juror's own testimony, found "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the juror's action had not influenced the verdict. We concluded that, in the circumstances of that case, it would not be proper to impute bias in the verdict or to find a post-trial hearing inadequate as a remedy for the alleged due process violation. Id. at 455 U. S. 219. The facts here involve no inference of juror misconduct or third-party influence, and therefore are of far less concern than the conduct at issue in Smith. See infra at 464 U. S. 120-121. Thus, a post-trial hearing is adequate to discover whether respondent was prejudiced by the undisclosed communications about juror Fagan's recollection.
See, e.g., Rogers v. United States, 422 U. S. 35, 422 U. S. 38-40 (1975) (although violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 may be harmless error, additional instructions from judge to jury, without notification to defendant or his counsel, is not); Shields v. United States, 273 U. S. 583, 273 U. S. 588-589 (1927) (undisclosed instructions from judge to jury violate nonconstitutionally based rules of orderly trial procedure); Fillippon v. Albion Vein Slate Co., 250 U. S. 76, 250 U. S. 81 (1919) (same).
A juror may testify concerning any mental bias in matters unrelated to the specific issues that the juror was called upon to decide and whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the juror's attention. See Fed.Rule Evid. 606(b); Smith v. Phillips, supra, at 455 U. S. 217, and n. 7, 455 U. S. 218-219, and n. 8. But a juror generally cannot testify about the mental process by which the verdict was arrived. See Mattox v. United States, 146 U. S. 140 (1892). Thus, the California Court of Appeal refused to consider certain testimony in arriving at its decision that respondent had not suffered prejudice "beyond a reasonable doubt." App. C to Pet. for Cert. 33. The District Court improperly refused to defer to the California Court of Appeal's sensitive review of this evidence. See 543 F.Supp. 757, 773-774 (ND Cal.1982).
Although JUSTICE MARSHALL's dissent purportedly agrees that the District Court was obliged to defer to the California Court of Appeal's finding that the jury's deliberations were not biased if that finding had "even fair support' in the record," post at 464 U. S. 143, its critique of the circumstances underlying that finding proves otherwise. The dissent concedes, albeit grudgingly, that each circumstance the California Court of Appeal relied on in concluding "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the jury's impartiality was not impaired was probative. See post at 464 U. S. 143-148. But the dissent, like the District Court below, argues that each circumstance is defective either because it depends on the juror's own statements concerning her impartiality or because "the potential for impairment of the jury's impartiality [in each] was considerable." See post at 464 U. S. 148. Thus, the dissent, like the District Court, bases its conclusion not on a "lack of even fair support in the record," but on its own evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, see, e.g., post at 464 U. S. 145, n. 29, and a concern about the potential for prejudice in the underlying circumstances.
Such an approach plainly fails to adhere to the commands of the applicable statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides that the state courts' determinations about witness credibility and inferences to be drawn from the testimony were binding on the District Court and are binding on us. See Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422, 459 U. S. 434 (1983). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) requires that a federal habeas court more than simply disagree with the state court before rejecting its factual determinations. It must conclude that the findings "lac[k] even fair support' in the record." 459 U.S. at 459 U. S. 432. That statutory test is satisfied by the existence of probative evidence underlying the California Court of Appeal's conclusion that the jury's impartiality was unimpaired "beyond a reasonable doubt." Ibid. Thus, our holding necessarily follows from the state courts' findings of fact and from the presumption of correctness accorded to those findings.
effective assistance of counsel, the Court vacates on the ground that the state court's conclusion that the juror was impartial has fair support in the record, and hence the constitutional deprivations were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most of my colleagues "emphatically disagree" [Footnote 2/1] with the suggestion that a simple test can be used to determine whether an ex parte communication between a trial judge and a juror makes a subsequent jury verdict constitutionally infirm. Nevertheless, I believe both the majority and the dissents gloss over the serious legal issues presented by this case.
The majority concludes that the lower federal courts had a duty to find the alleged constitutional error harmless beyond a doubt because of the state court conclusion that the jury was impartial. Ante at 464 U. S. 121. JUSTICE MARSHALL has persuasively shown, however, that there is a reasonable doubt concerning juror Fagan's impartiality. That doubt forecloses reliance on the harmless error standard enunciated in Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), [Footnote 2/2] but that doubt does not require that this petition for a writ of habeas corpus be granted.
If respondent had established any of these deprivations, he would have sustained his burden of showing essential unfairness, and would be entitled to the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
The question whether respondent was deprived of his right to be tried by an impartial jury is not before us, for respondent did not raise this claim in his habeas petition, choosing not to contend that juror Fagan was biased, either as a matter of law or as a matter of fact. 543 F.Supp. 757, 765 (ND Cal.1982). The majority, however, passes on this question in concluding that the assumed deprivations of the fundamental constitutional rights to counsel and presence at trial were harmless error.
the hearing and have the assistance of counsel at the hearing, but the existence of this right would not stem from the right to be present or the right to counsel. To argue that the right to counsel and presence is the source of the right to the midtrial hearing is to reason backwards. Naturally, since respondent was denied the opportunity for such a hearing, he was denied the incidents of such a hearing, but that does not establish a violation of the incidental rights unless there was a predicate right to notice and a midtrial hearing.
a question which we need not decide -- but they surely establish a reasonable doubt concerning her impartiality, and the presumptively correct findings of the state courts that she was not biased as a matter of fact erase neither the doubt nor the reasonableness of it.
In summary, although I agree that respondent has not carried his burden of establishing that his trial was fundamentally unfair, I cannot subscribe to the Court's assumption that a violation of the right to the assistance of counsel at trial, if established by the record, could be characterized as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor can I subscribe to the Court's analysis of the harmless error conundrum of its own making. I therefore concur in the judgment, but do not join the Court's opinion.
"The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the basis that an unrecorded ex parte communication between trial judge and juror can never be harmless error."
"To the extent that the majority means to imply that judges and jurors may freely engage in ex parte discussions of 'aspect[s] of the trial,' I emphatically disagree."
Post at 464 U. S. 139, n.19.
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. at 386 U. S. 24.
"There are at least four types. The most frequently encountered is a claim that attaches a constitutional label to a set of facts that does not disclose a violation of any constitutional right. . . . The second class includes constitutional violations that are not of sufficient import in a particular case to justify reversal even on direct appeal, when the evidence is still fresh and a fair retrial could be promptly conducted. Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 386 U. S. 22; Harrington v. California, 395 U. S. 250, 395 U. S. 254. A third category includes errors that are important enough to require reversal on direct appeal, but do not reveal the kind of fundamental unfairness to the accused that will support a collateral attack on a final judgment. See, e.g., Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465. The fourth category includes those errors that are so fundamental that they infect the validity of the underlying judgment itself, or the integrity of the process by which that judgment was obtained."
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 455 U. S. 543-544 (1982) (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
In order to obtain habeas corpus relief from incarceration pursuant to a presumptively valid state court judgment, a prisoner must persuade a federal court that the most serious kind of constitutional error infected the proceedings that led to his conviction.
"It is of the historical essence of habeas corpus that it lies to test proceedings so fundamentally lawless that imprisonment pursuant to them is not merely erroneous, but void."
"the burden of showing essential unfairness [must] be sustained by him who claims such injustice and seeks to have the result set aside, and . . . it must be sustained not as a matter of speculation, but as a demonstrable reality."
Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 317 U. S. 281 (1942).
"at the confluence of three streams of constitutional doctrine, flowing from the right of defendants in criminal proceedings to trial by an impartial jury, their right to be personally present during the proceedings, and their right to be represented by an attorney."
"there was federal constitutional error committed as a consequence of the in camera conversations between Fagan and the trial judge in that neither [respondent] nor [his] counsel were present."
Id. at 23. The court then proceeded to determine whether this ill-defined "constitutional error" was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In doing so, the court essentially ignored the constitutional deprivation it had assumed, and instead concluded that Fagan's recollection of her friend's murder at the hands of a Black Panther did not deprive respondent of his right to an impartial jury. The only role played by the "constitutional error" in the court's analysis was that it allocated the burden of proof to the State to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the jury was not biased. The California Court of Appeal's unfortunate mode of analyzing this case is regrettably repeated in this Court.
I understand that the Court's approach to this case is largely a function of petitioners' apparent concession below that the ex parte communications established a constitutional violation. An apparent concession is all that it is, however, for petitioners' concession is so amorphous as to be meaningless, and the parties actually argue the substance of the constitutional questions under the harmless error label. Indeed, the District Court recognized the illusory nature of petitioners' concession: it refused to assume the existence of a constitutional deprivation without substance or content, and proceeded to determine for itself whether the facts disclosed violations of constitutionally secured rights. 543 F.Supp. 757, 765 (ND Cal.1982).
Indeed, the case would not be very different if defense counsel had learned of the potential bias in the course of the trial, and the trial judge denied a motion for a midtrial hearing on the question, but held a post-trial hearing.
If respondent had a fundamental due process right to notice of the substance of the communication between the judge and the juror and an opportunity for a hearing on the matter during midtrial, the reason for recognizing such a right would stem from the fact that juror bias questions are inherently speculative, and that the meaningful time for a hearing on such questions is at a point in time when doubts about impartiality can be easily remedied by replacing the juror with an alternate. A deprivation of a right with such a rationale could not be held to be harmless error. See, e.g., Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 386 U. S. 52, n. 7 (1967) ("[P]articular types of error have an effect which is so devastating or inherently indeterminate that as a matter of law they cannot reasonably be found harmless") (Harlan, J., dissenting). This, in substance, is what the lower courts held.
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. at 386 U. S. 23, and n. 8; id. at 386 U. S. 42-44 (Stewart, J., concurring in result); id. at 386 U. S. 52, and n. 7 (Harlan, J., dissenting); see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963); Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 315 U. S. 76 (1942) ("The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial"); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932); see also Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 446 U. S. 349-350 (1980); Geders v. United States, 425 U. S. 80 (1976); Herring v. New York, 422 U. S. 853, 422 U. S. 863 (1975). The Court has permitted harmless error analysis regarding deprivations of the right to counsel at pretrial stages of criminal proceedings, e.g., Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1 (1970), but see White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59 (1963) (per curiam), and naturally permits such analysis when the violation of the Sixth Amendment consists of the admission of evidence, since it is ordinarily possible to ascertain whether consideration of inadmissible evidence is harmless error, compare United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264, 447 U. S. 274-275, n. 13 (1980), with Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964); see also Moore v. Illinois, 434 U. S. 220 (1977).
In United States v. Morrison, 449 U. S. 361 (1981), we assumed that a pretrial unsuccessful attempt by Government agents to deprive a defendant of her right to effective assistance of counsel was a violation of the Sixth Amendment, and held that dismissal of an indictment is not a proper remedy for that assumed violation. Morrison is not a harmless error case. The opinion did observe that, even if the Government agents had managed to elicit incriminating information from the defendant, in violation of Massiah v. United States, supra, in their otherwise unsuccessful attempt to persuade her to cooperate and to discharge her attorney, her remedy for that violation would simply be to suppress the tainted evidence. The erroneous admission of such evidence would be susceptible to a harmless error analysis, as the opinion indicated when it then noted in passing that "certain" violations of the right to counsel may be disregarded as harmless error, correctly citing Moore v. Illinois, supra, as identifying the types of violations which may be treated as harmless error -- a limited exception to our conclusion in Chapman. 449 U.S. at 449 U. S. 365.
Whether application of this analysis is appropriate with respect to the purported right-to-presence violation is largely a question of semantics. The right to be present at trial is rooted in the Confrontation Clause. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337, 397 U. S. 338 (1970). If a defendant were denied access to the courtroom while the prosecutor was examining his accusers, the constitutional error would taint the verdict no matter how firmly we might be convinced that the defendant's absence did not affect the outcome of the trial. See Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 291 U. S. 116 (1934) ("[C]onstitutional privileges or immunities may be conferred so explicitly as to leave no room for an inquiry whether prejudice to a defendant has been wrought through their denial"). Even so, a very brief absence might be held to be a de minimis violation and afford no basis for relief. Ibid. Moreover, we have viewed a potential for prejudice as a necessary element of a violation of the right to be present. Thus, while a core Confrontation Clause violation might not be deemed harmless error, the more general right to presence may be inherently susceptible to a harmless error analysis. Id. at 291 U. S. 114-118.
The majority uses the phrase the jury's deliberations "as a whole" were not biased. Ante at 464 U. S. 120, 464 U. S. 121. Unless one can say beyond a reasonable doubt that juror Fagan's deliberations were not improperly influenced by her knowledge of the murder of her friend at the hands of a Black Panther, I fail to see how one can conclude that the jury's deliberations "as a whole" were not biased. Hence, I fail to see the point in not focusing on Fagan in this analysis. Respondent has never made any serious effort at establishing that the other jurors' knowledge of the murder of Fagan's friend directly influenced their thoughts about the case. I cannot believe that the majority means to imply that an additional showing of prejudice is required after one of the jurors is established to be prejudiced. Surely, a defendant has a right to impartiality on the part of all of the jurors, and a violation of that right is plainly not susceptible to a harmless error analysis. See Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927).
Without the benefit of briefing or oral argument, the Court today vacates the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affirming the decision of the District Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Because I believe that the rulings below were correct, and because I believe that important constitutional questions deserve more careful consideration than they have been accorded in this case, I dissent.
attempt. In an effort to assemble a jury capable of assessing impartially this and other controversial questions, the trial judge and defense counsel during voir dire questioned prospective jurors regarding their attitudes toward the Black Panthers and toward violent crimes in general. One of the members of the venire, Patricia Fagan, testified that she did not associate the Black Panthers with violence, and that she did not have any personal knowledge of violent crime; Fagan was subsequently accepted as a juror.
of the Black Panther Party. [Footnote 3/2] Fagan feared that the 1968 murder that had just been discussed by the prosecutor was that of her friend.
Fagan went to the trial judge's chambers and informed him of her suspicions. She told the judge that she might cry if Pratt's prior crime were mentioned again in the courtroom. The judge indicated that it was unlikely that Pratt was her friend's murderer. The judge asked Fagan whether her deliberations would be affected by what she had learned, and that Fagan indicated that they would not. [Footnote 3/3] The judge then admonished her to put the matter out of her mind.
"I told her I didn't see how that was significant, but did she feel it would have any effect on her disposition towards the case. She said that she did not accept that, she felt that, if Mr. Pratt were called to testify, that she would be very unsettled by that. [Footnote 3/4]"
"something to the effect, 'O.K., no problem, then,' meaning that the information regarding Pratt and my friend would have no adverse effect on me, and played no part in my evaluation of this case. [Footnote 3/5]"
"the Black Panther Party had helped to smuggle weapons or ammunition to Jackson and implied that [respondent's] party membership was evidence that he, too, was 'involved in' the escape plan and 'working with' Jackson. [Footnote 3/7]"
was convicted of two counts of murder and of conspiracy to escape. [Footnote 3/8] Respondent was sentenced to life imprisonment.
"it has been suggested that there is a potential that your testimony may disclose a violation of your oath of office as a juror in the case, and if that were to be true, you would potentially face possible criminal prosecution arising out of that. [Footnote 3/9]"
The judge informed Fagan that she had a right not to incriminate herself and a right to have a lawyer present to advise her during questioning. [Footnote 3/10] Fagan then formally waived her right to an attorney, [Footnote 3/11] and the hearing proceeded.
the Black Panther Party. At each point, the prosecutor successfully objected to the question on the ground that inquiry into the mental processes by which a juror reached a verdict is proscribed by Cal.Evid.Code Ann. § 1150(a) (West 1966). [Footnote 3/12] Fagan's testimony accordingly was limited to an account of what occurred in her meetings with the judge and to what she had known, believed, or felt at various points in the trial. [Footnote 3/13] None of the other jurors testified at the hearing.
On the basis of Fagan's testimony and of his own recollection of the events at issue, the trial judge ruled that respondent had failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the ex parte contacts, [Footnote 3/14] and accordingly denied respondent's motion for a new trial. The California Court of Appeal, in a divided opinion, affirmed on the ground that, although the secret contacts between Fagan and the trial judge gave rise to federal constitutional error, [Footnote 3/15] the error was harmless. The California Supreme Court denied review.
"[i]n this case, the district court correctly concluded that the condition of the record made it impossible to apply intelligently the harmless error test. [Footnote 3/17]"
"arises at the confluence of three streams of constitutional doctrine, flowing from the right of defendants in criminal proceedings to trial by an impartial jury, their right to be personally present during the proceedings, and their right to be represented by an attorney. [Footnote 3/18]"
The existence and importance of the three constitutional rights mentioned by the Court of Appeal are beyond dispute. "In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, indifferent' jurors." Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 366 U. S. 722 (1961); see also Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 466, 379 U. S. 471-473 (1965).
fairness of the proceedings, Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97 ."
Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806, 422 U. S. 819, n. 15 (1975).
"The Sixth Amendment provides that an accused shall enjoy the right 'to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.' This right, fundamental to our system of justice, is meant to assure fairness in the adversary criminal process. Our cases have accordingly been responsive to proved claims that governmental conduct has rendered counsel's assistance to the defendant ineffective."
United State v. Morrison, 449 U. S. 361, 449 U. S. 364 (1981) (citations omitted); see also Herring v. New York, 422 U. S. 853, 422 U. S. 857 (1975) (acknowledging the applicability of these principles to state criminal proceedings).
matters little whether one characterizes the resultant injury to the defendant as a deprivation of the right to counsel, a violation of the "right to be present," or an abridgment of the right to an impartial jury. The essence of the situation is that, when information that bears upon the ability of a juror to remain "indifferent" is withheld from the defendant and his counsel, the machine on which we rely to ensure that the defendant is not deprived of his liberty without due process of law breaks down.
protections inherent in the adversary system made it essential that respondent or his lawyer be informed of the circumstances that had come to the judge's attention. The judge's failure to so inform respondent or his counsel was constitutional error.
The conclusion that respondent's federal constitutional rights were violated does not dispose of this case. As all of the courts below recognized, respondent is not entitled to relief if it can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent suffered no harm as a result of the abridgment of his rights. Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967). As the District Court pointed out, two kinds of possible injuries must be assessed in applying the harmless error standard to the facts of this case: injury to respondent resulting from the bias of one or more jurors and injury resulting from respondent's loss of opportunity to correct, mitigate, or adjust to an alteration in the perspective of one or more jurors.
"[t]his finding of "fact" -- on a question the state courts were in a far better position than the federal courts to answer -- deserves a "high measure of deference," and may be set aside only if it "lack[s] even fair support' in the record.""
Ante at 464 U. S. 120 (citation omitted).
"From [respondent's] perspective, the combination of Ms. Fagan's knowledge, its emotional impact on her, and the trial testimony concerning Elmer Pratt's leadership role in the Black Panther Party had potentially devastating implications. In a case concerning a violent series of events in which the Black Panther Party played a key role, . . . the defendant, though he did not know it, was being judged by a juror greatly distressed by memories of the violent death of her good friend at the hands of a person she knew to be a Black Panther Party member -- a person shown by trial testimony to be a leader of that party. Extraordinary insight is not required to perceive the potential harm to [respondent] if Ms. Fagan's personal experience, rather than the evidence at trial, were permitted to determine jurors' assessments of [respondent's] guilt or innocence. [Footnote 3/25]"
Party with 'any form of violence.' [Footnote 3/27] Such testimony is clearly irrelevant to whether Fagan's recollection of the fact that Olson was killed by a Black Panther -- a recollection inconsistent with her statement at voir dir -- affected her impartiality."
"[d]uring her conversation with the trial judge regarding Pratt, the court asked her if the Pratt killing of her friend would affect her disposition toward the case and she replied that it would not. [Footnote 3/28]"
with the trial judge, made simple declarations (the precise content of which neither Fagan nor the judge remembers) concerning her unimpaired impartiality. The judge made no effort to test Fagan's assertions -- to explore the basis for her confidence in her ability to look at the case through unjaundiced eyes. In sum, the statements made by Fagan in the two ex parte meetings provide little if any support for the finding of the Court of Appeal that Fagan's deliberations were unaffected by her knowledge of Olson's murder.
is subject to the same infirmity as the state court's finding regarding what was in fact said at those meetings: it pertains at most to Fagan's disinterestedness at those moments and indicates nothing regarding her state of mind when it came time to render a verdict. The probative value of her statements at the hearing is further undercut by the fact that Fagan was aware that an admission that her impartiality had indeed been impaired might well subject her to criminal liability. In sum, as the Court of Appeal itself seems to have recognized, little if any support for a finding of lack of bias may be gleaned from Fagan's testimony at the postconviction hearing.
"[i]n addition, we rely on the objective results of the jury deliberations as demonstrating that the jury, as a whole, and Fagan, in particular, were unbiased. [Footnote 3/33]"
"Though the California Court of Appeal concluded that the fact that [respondent] was acquitted on some counts shows that the jury was not biased, . . . that very fact is subject to precisely the opposite inference. [Respondent] was the only defendant who was a member of the Black Panther Party and the only defendant convicted of conspiracy and murder. The only counts on which [respondent] was convicted were those with which he was connected, not by any direct participation in the acts of violence at San Quentin, but by his association and alleged conspiracy with George Jackson, also a Black Panther. All of the other defendants were acquitted of the conspiracy counts and the related substantive crimes. This pattern of convictions and acquittals, viewed from the perspective of the dangers posed by Ms. Fagan's personal exposure and reaction to events linking the Black Panther Party to other violent crime, certainly raises a reasonable possibility that the information known by Ms. Fagan and communicated to other jurors influenced the verdicts. [Footnote 3/35]"
that he had joined an ongoing conspiracy to escape from the prison. As the Court of Appeal acknowledged, the evidence pertaining to whether there had existed such a conspiracy was closely balanced. [Footnote 3/36] One of the facts tending to show the existence of the conspiracy was the common membership in the Black Panther Party of the alleged conspirators. The risk that, in passing on this critical question, Fagan or the other jurors whom she told of her recollection would be affected by their knowledge that Fagan's childhood friend had been murdered by a Party leader was severe. In view of the paucity of evidence of the absence of bias and the severity of the danger of bias, the District Court properly concluded that the state court's finding "beyond a reasonable doubt" that no bias existed is not fairly supported by the record.
The second injury that respondent may have suffered as a result of the constitutional error committed by the trial judge is impairment of his ability to organize the presentation of his case to take into account the sensitivities of the jury. [Footnote 3/37] As the District Court recognized, had respondent or his counsel been told what occurred during the ex parte meetings, they might have acted in either of two ways (other than seeking Fagan's replacement by an alternate juror) to minimize the potential adverse impact on their case of Fagan's memory. First, they could have requested an instruction by the trial judge that Fagan not speak to the other jurors regarding the circumstances surrounding Olson's death. Second, they might have decided not to present extensive evidence of respondent's prominent role in the Black Panther Party.
Either of these requests might have affected the outcome of the case.
The District Court and Court of Appeals conscientiously applied the standard of review applicable to habeas corpus proceedings embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Examination of the papers that have been submitted to us reveals the conclusions reached by each of the federal judges who has considered this case to be manifestly correct. Nevertheless, without affording respondent the opportunity to brief the issues presented, the Court summarily vacates the judgment below.
"Patricia Fagan had, from the age of six or seven, been a 'good,' 'close,' but not 'best' friend of Carolyn Olson. . . . Fagan cared for Olson's daughter on a daily basis while Olson was attending U.C.L.A. in about 1962. At this time, the two women rarely visited socially. Fagan knew Olson's husband."
People v. Spain, No. 1/Crim. 16126 (Cal.App. July 24, 1980), reprinted in App. C to Pet. for Cert. 14-15 (hereafter App. C). In the absence of "convincing evidence" to the contrary, the foregoing findings -- as well as all other findings by the state trial court and state appellate court that pertain to matters of historical fact -- were binding on the District Court, and are binding on us. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U. S. 422, 459 U. S. 432-435 (1983); Sumner v. Mata, 455 U. S. 591, 455 U. S. 592-593 (1982) (per curiam).
"The circumstances of the killing, as known to [Fagan], were that Olson and her husband were playing tennis when two people demanded their money, ordered them to lie down, and shot them."
People v. Spain, App. C, at 15; see also Tr. of Postconviction Hearing 23958 (Tr.).
Neither the judge's preliminary account of this first meeting nor Fagan's first postconviction description of the encounter indicated that Fagan's ability to remain impartial had been discussed. In their subsequent accounts, however, both parties maintained that the judge had questioned Fagan on this point and Fagan had indicated that her deliberations would be unaffected. The state appellate court credited Fagan's and the judge's later testimony, see People v. Spain, App. C, at 19-20, and the District Court was bound by the state court's assessment of the conflicting evidence, see n. 1, supra.
Affidavit of Patricia Fagan, Sept. 27, 1976, District Court Record 5481-5482 (R.); see also People v. Spain, App. C, at 19-20.
R. 5482; see also People v. Spain, App. C, at 21.
Respondent's conviction on the two counts of murder was based upon a theory of vicarious liability. It was not alleged that respondent himself killed anyone; rather, the prosecution argued that respondent had joined a conspiracy between Jackson and one Bingham to escape, and that the murders were probable consequences of that conspiracy. All of respondent's convictions thus turned upon the strength of his association with Jackson, and it was that association that the prosecutor sought to establish by stressing respondent's and Jackson's common membership in the Black Panther Party.
"Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict, any otherwise admissible evidence may be received as to statements made, or conduct, conditions, or events occurring, either within or without the jury room, of such a character as is likely to have influenced the verdict improperly. No evidence is admissible to show the effect of such statement, conduct, condition, or event upon a juror either in influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which it was determined."
The distinction drawn by the California rules between evidence of facts bearing upon the existence of any extraneous influence on the jury's deliberations and evidence of the mental processes by which the jury reached a result is consistent with that drawn in most other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Mattox v. United States, 146 U. S. 140, 146 U. S. 149 (1892).
"Fagan testified that . . . her subsequent recollection [of her friend's death] did not affect her ability impartially to judge respondent's innocence or guilt."
Ante at 464 U. S. 116. Later, the majority makes much of the fact that Fagan "repeatedly testified that, upon recollection, the incident did not affect her impartiality." Ante at 464 U. S. 120-121. No such testimony can be found in the transcript of the postconviction hearing. The prosecutor and trial judge took care to prevent Fagan from answering any questions that pertained to the reasoning or motivations that induced her to conclude that respondent was guilty. See, e.g., Tr. 23965-23971. Indeed, Fagan did not even testify as to what she had told the judge during their ex parte meetings concerning the effect of her recollection upon her disposition toward the case. The only testimony at the hearing that pertained to their discussion of her impartiality was provided by the trial judge. His account of their conversations indicated (at most) that Fagan had assured him that she would remain impartial when it came time to render a verdict. See id. at 23919-23920. The judge's description of what Fagan said during the meetings is corroborated by the affidavit that Fagan submitted to the trial court, see supra at 464 U. S. 133-134, and n. 5. But nothing in the record indicates whether Fagan was able to keep her promise that she would remain unbiased.
The District Court accurately characterized the state trial judge's finding as an "implicit" conclusion that any error was harmless. See 543 F.Supp. 757, 771 (ND Cal.1982), affirmance order, 701 F.2d 186 (CA9 1983).
The Court of Appeal's opinion is somewhat ambiguous on this issue. At one point, the court suggested that it was simply assuming, for the sake of argument, that respondent had demonstrated federal constitutional error. See People v. Spain, App. C at 23. At other points, the court seemed to vouch for the proposition that constitutional error had been shown. See id. at 23, n. 4, and 26-27. In any event, the District Court was obliged to determine this issue de novo.
Spain v. Rushen, No. 82-4358 (CA9 Jan. 24, 1983), reprinted in App. A to Pet. for Cert. 5. The majority characterizes the holding of the Court of Appeals as a ruling that "an unrecorded ex parte communication between trial judge and juror can never be harmless error." Ante at 464 U. S. 117. Though the Court of Appeals' decision is not altogether clear on this point, its reference to "this case" strongly suggests that it intended to rule only that, on the facts of the controversy before it, the potential for harm to respondent entailed by the secret meetings between Fagan and the trial judge was so great that something more than a postconviction hearing five months after the incidents in question was necessary to establish that the constitutional error was harmless. If the majority is truly concerned lest the Court of Appeals' memorandum opinion be read more broadly, the proper disposition of the case would be to remand it with instructions to the Court of Appeals to clarify the basis of its decision, not summarily to vacate the decision on the ground that "[t]he lower federal courts should have . . . found the alleged constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Ante at 464 U. S. 121.
People v. Spain, App. C at 22-23.
"[t]here is scarcely a lengthy trial in which one or more jurors do not have occasion to speak to the trial judge about something, whether it relates to a matter of personal comfort or to some aspect of the trial."
Ante at 464 U. S. 118. Whatever one thinks of the accuracy of the majority's generalization regarding the frequency of contacts between judges and jurors, it has little to do with this case. At issue here is a pair of ex parte meetings between a trial judge and a juror in which the juror revealed to the judge facts that impinged significantly upon the juror's impartiality -- i.e., that bore upon the juror's ability fairly to assess the defendant's guilt or innocence. The question whether the judge had a constitutional obligation to tell the defendant or his lawyer what the juror had told him should not depend upon how often jurors approach judges to talk about matters of "personal comfort." To the extent that the majority means to imply that judges and jurors may freely engage in ex parte discussions of "aspect[s] of the trial," I emphatically disagree.
The severity of the risk that Fagan would be unable impartially to assess the evidence presented to her -- a risk that should have been apparent to the trial judge even at midtrial -- distinguishes this case from Smith v. Phillips, 455 U. S. 209 (1982). Contrary to the suggestion of the majority, ante at 464 U. S. 119, n. 3, the facts of this case are significantly more "troublesome" than those of Smith. In Smith, the defendant and his counsel learned at voir dire that the juror in question hoped to pursue a career in law enforcement; defense counsel was nevertheless able to satisfy himself that the juror was unbiased, and should be seated. At no point did the juror act in a way suggesting that his emotional outlook on the case was different from the outlook with which he began. Moreover, there was no direct link in Smith between the nature of the bias to which the juror was vulnerable and the substance of the contested issues in the case. By contrast, in the instant case, Fagan's revived memories were flatly inconsistent with her testimony at voir dire, Fagan clearly indicated to the judge the degree to which she was "unsettled" by her recollections, and the nature of the potential prejudice to which she was exposed bore directly upon one of the principal disputed issues in the trial -- namely, the existence and scope of a conspiracy among various members of the Black Panther Party inside and outside the prison to engineer Jackson's escape.
Smith is readily distinguishable on other grounds as well: in contrast to this case, the trial judge in Smith did not learn of the circumstances that threatened the impartiality of the juror until after the defendant had been convicted. Again in contrast to this case, the defendant and his counsel in Smith were not denied access to any meetings between the trial judge and a juror. Thus, two of the constitutional rights implicated in this case -- the right to the assistance of counsel and the right to be present at critical stages of the trial, see supra at 464 U. S. 138-140 -- were not at issue in Smith. For an additional distinction between the two cases, see n. 23 infra.
People v. Spain, App. C at 28.
There are good reasons to doubt the premise of the majority's opinion -- namely, that a determination, based solely on inferences drawn from objective circumstances, that a juror was not biased is no different from any other factual determination for the purpose of applying the standard of review embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). As the California Court of Appeal acknowledged when it phrased its finding as a ruling that, "beyond a reasonable doubt," Fagan was not prejudiced, the determination of this question is tantamount to a determination of the ultimate question whether the constitutional error was harmless, which is preeminently a matter of federal law, see Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967). If federal courts are obliged to defer to state court findings of this order, the capacity of the federal courts through habeas proceedings to remedy deprivations of constitutional rights in state criminal trials will be substantially undercut. Sensitivity to these problems perhaps explains the majority's decision to place in quotation marks its description of a determination of jury bias as a question of "fact." Ante at 464 U. S. 120; see also Smith v. Phillips, supra, at 455 U. S. 222, and n. (O'CONNOR, J., concurring) (In certain "exceptional situations," in which objective circumstances cast considerable doubt on the impartiality of a juror, the federal courts may be obliged to apply a doctrine of "implied bias" and, in so doing, "need not be deterred by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)").
As the majority notes, the facts of this case bear some resemblance to those of Smith v. Phillips, and the majority relies upon the result reached in Smith to buttress its ruling that the District Court in the instant case should not have issued the writ of habeas corpus. Ante at 464 U. S. 118-119, and n. 3. I remain persuaded that the decision in Smith was incorrect. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. at 455 U. S. 224 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). It should be emphasized, however, that, for two reasons, Smith does not control this case. First, as indicated above, the potential impact in this case of events occurring in midtrial upon the impartiality of the jury is substantially greater than was true in Smith. See n. 20, supra. Second, the posture in which the question of jury bias arose in Smith is fundamentally different from the posture in which that issue is presented in this case. In Smith, the existence of a constitutional violation turned upon proof of actual impairment of the impartiality of the jury. The Court ruled that only if the defendant were able affirmatively to prove bias on the part of a juror could he establish a violation of due process. Concluding that the state court's determination that the defendant had not proved bias was supported by the record, and therefore was not vulnerable to review by the District Court, the majority in Smith held that no "constitutional violation" had been established, and that the writ should not have issued. 455 U.S. at 455 U. S. 221. In this case, by contrast, a constitutional violation occurred when the trial judge failed to inform respondent, defense counsel, or the prosecutor of what had transpired during the judge's ex parte meetings with Fagan. See supra at 464 U. S. 138-141. Thus, the District Court was obliged to issue the writ unless the State could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that respondent had suffered no injury as a result of the judge's constitutional error. The language used by the Court in Smith to define the burden a criminal defendant must sustain in order to prove an abridgment of his constitutional right to an impartial jury thus has no relevance to this case.
People v. Spain, App. C at 24; see also id. at 35.
People v. Spain, App. C at 35.
People v. Spain, App. C, at 33.
"at the motion for a new trial where all appellants and their counsel were present, she testified that she associated the Black Panther Party with 'worthwhile activities' such as a breakfast program for school children carried on by the party."
"My answers to [respondent's counsel's] questions [at voir dire] regarding the Black Panther Party . . . were and still are true and correct. My knowledge of the Black Panther Party was primarily limited to a breakfast program for school children conducted by that organization in the Los Angeles Area. Therefore, I associate the Black Panther Party with worthwhile activities."
People v. Spain, App. C at 33.
People v. Spain, APP. C at 5.
I would deny certiorari in this case, because I am not at all persuaded that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was wrong in affirming the District Court's decision to issue a writ of habeas corpus, or that the case presents an issue worthy of plenary review. I therefore dissent.
As the discussion that this case has generated illustrates, it is not simply a situation where the federal habeas courts have disregarded the guidance provided by Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539 (1981), and Smith v. Phillips, 455 U. S. 209 (1982). Nor does it involve a question over which the lower courts are confused or that is likely to recur often.
"The state court made no contemporary record of the ex parte communication between judge and juror or even of the fact that it took place. In this case, the district court correctly concluded that the condition of the record made it impossible to apply intelligently the harmless error test. Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 386 U. S. 22 (1966). The court's explanation of its decision to grant the habeas writ referred to the inadequacy of the state's record and the need for extensive speculation in determining the extent of the error. See Sumner, 449 U.S. at 449 U. S. 551. The harmless effect of conceded constitutional error cannot be established by speculation from a silent record."
App. A to Pet. for Cert. 4-5.
unrecorded ex parte communication between a trial judge and a juror can never be harmless error.
"[I]n certain instances, a hearing may be inadequate for uncovering a juror's biases, leaving serious question whether the trial court had subjected the defendant to manifestly unjust procedures resulting in a miscarriage of justice. While each case must turn on its own facts, there are some extreme situations that would justify a finding of implied bias. Some examples might include a revelation that the juror is an actual employee of the prosecuting agency, that the juror is a close relative of one of the participants in the trial or the criminal transaction, or that the juror was a witness or somehow involved in the criminal transaction. Whether or not the state proceedings result in a finding of 'no bias,' the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury should not allow a verdict to stand under such circumstances."
determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue . . . shall be presumed to be correct.'"
Id. at 455 U. S. 222, n.
* JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that the constitutional error here was mischaracterized as a deprivation of the right to counsel and to be present at critical stages of the trial, rather than as a denial of the right to be tried by an impartial jury. Even assuming that he is correct, the fact is, as the Court notes, see ante at 464 U. S. 117-118, n. 2, that petitioners have conceded and the courts below have assumed that respondent's constitutional rights to counsel and to be present at critical stages of the trial were violated. On the basis of that assumption, the dispute has centered on whether respondent was harmed by that error, in particular whether respondent was harmed by juror bias. In light of the framework in which the analysis has been cast, JUSTICE STEVENS' view that the question whether juror Fagan was biased has not been raised appears to me to be unnecessarily narrow.

References: § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2254
 v. 
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1150
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.