Opinion ID: 784664
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Exclude Juror Harris

Text: 32 Dennis contends that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a fair trial in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because the trial court failed to excuse Juror Terri Harris for cause. During voir dire, potential jurors were asked whether any had been the victim of a crime of violence. Harris answered no. 3 After the jury began penalty phase deliberations, a police detective contacted the prosecutor, asking that Harris be allowed to take a break from deliberations in order to sign a criminal complaint along with her two sisters. Although defense counsel and the prosecutor knew that Harris was going to be a witness in a case where the defendant was charged with the crime of gross sexual imposition, they did not know until the penalty phase that she was a victim. Upon learning that Harris was actually a victim, the prosecutor promptly informed defense counsel and the court. 33 The trial court called Harris into chambers and questioned her. Harris explained that, when asked if she had ever been a victim of a violent crime, she in turn asked the judge's bailiff, Alys, about the definition of violent crime, and decided that what happened to me by your definition of violent would not be violent. She further explained that her answer was based strictly on the definition of murder. The trial court indicated that gross sexual imposition is considered a violent crime, but that it understood how Harris had interpreted it, and that it might not have been clear as it probably should have. 34 The trial court also asked Harris if she thought the fact that she was a victim would interfere with her ability to evaluate this case. Harris responded: 35 Absolutely not. I feel that I am a professional and I feel that what happened to me has nothing to do with what happened to the Kyle family or Adremy Dennis. 36 I feel that I can handle it professionally and there is parts to everyone's personality and I feel very strongly that I can separate myself from that. 37 You asked me to do a job and I'm doing a job. 38 When asked by the trial court whether she could separate out your experience as a victim from this particular case and not let anything carry over that would cause you to identify more with victims, Harris responded that the two cases were not comparable. Finally, the court asked Harris whether she foresaw any possible problem. She responded that she did not, and stated that she was able to separate her emotions from her duty, just as the trial court had instructed. The trial judge then asked counsel if they had anything. Defense counsel responded [t]hat's fine. The prosecutor indicated that he had no questions. At that point the trial judge directed Harris to return to the jury room. 39 After Harris returned to the jury room, the trial court asked counsel if they wanted to put anything on the record. Defense counsel replied no. The prosecutor informed the trial court that, although they knew prior to trial that Harris was a witness, they had just learned that Harris was a victim. 40 The trial court then made the following findings of fact: 41 I think that she did give it some thought. She was not intentionally trying to conceal anything. She just did not recognize what we recognize, that a sexual abuse victim is to us a violent crime and I gather that is not terribly clear in the way we ask it. 42 And so she did make that inquiry of Alys and Alys' response was, well, when she says are they talking about murder, violent, she said I would imagine so, that she just dismissed it as not being something that would be covered under violent crime. 43 I was also satisfied with her answer as to her ability to handle it. 44 Upon this ruling, defense counsel did not ask that Harris be removed. However, after the jury returned and recommended to the court that Dennis be sentenced to death, Dennis moved for a mistrial, claiming that Harris was biased. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that Harris was voir dired by the court, the prosecutor, and by defense counsel, and thereafter passed to continue on with her service. 45 The Ohio Supreme Court held that the trial court had not abused its discretion by concluding that Harris was impartial and could remain on the jury. 46 During the jury's penalty-phase deliberations, the trial court learned that Harris had been a victim of sexual abuse as a child, when a detective asked the court to momentarily excuse Harris from deliberations in order to sign a criminal complaint. The court brought Harris into chambers before the parties and conducted a voir-dire examination of her at that time. Harris explained that she had decided not to mention the sexual abuse during the original voir-dire examination because she did not feel it fit the definition of violent crime. She reached this conclusion after asking the trial judge's bailiff during jury selection for a definition of violent crime. Harris indicated that at that time, she concluded that her experience was not violent when compared to murder, and therefore, did not bring it to the court's attention. 47 The court questioned Harris extensively, and she was adamant that her status as a victim of sexual abuse had nothing to do with what happened to the Kyle family or Dennis, and that she could separate the two experiences and be impartial. The court asked defense counsel if they had anything they wished to put on the record, and defense counsel indicated they did not. After Harris returned to the jury room, counsel for both sides informed the court that just prior to trial they became aware of the fact that Harris had been a witness to sexual abuse. Counsel for both parties agreed that it probably wasn't necessary for them to act upon it. However, at the end of the trial, defense counsel filed a motion for mistrial upon learning that Harris was a victim of sexual abuse, and not just a witness. 48 A trial court enjoys broad discretion in determining a juror's ability to be impartial. State v. Williams (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 281, 288, 6 OBR 345, 351, 452 N.E.2d 1323, 1331. The trial court's decision to allow Harris to remain on the jury did not amount to an abuse of discretion, especially in light of the court's voir-dire examination of Harris conducted in chambers during penaltyphase deliberations. See State v. Maurer, (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 250-251, 15 OBR 379, 389, 473 N.E.2d 768, 781. Accordingly, Proposition of Law No. 5 is overruled. 49 State v. Dennis, 683 N.E.2d at 1103. 50 On habeas review, the district court held that the Ohio Supreme Court's opinion was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, namely McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984). See Dennis v. Mitchell, 68 F.Supp.2d 863, 885-89 (N.D.Ohio 1999). 51 The Sixth Amendment provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI. The right to an impartial jury is applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. See Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). See also Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 726, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992)(discussing Irvin and Turner ). Furthermore, due process alone has long demanded that, if a jury is to be provided the defendant, regardless of whether the Sixth Amendment requires it, the jury must stand impartial and indifferent to the extent commanded by the Sixth Amendment. Morgan, 504 U.S. at 727, 112 S.Ct. 2222. The voir dire is designed to protect [this right] by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the part of potential jurors. McDonough, 464 U.S. at 554, 104 S.Ct. 845. Therefore, [t]he necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors if this process is to serve its purpose is obvious. Id. 52 When a juror's impartiality is at issue, the relevant question is did a juror swear that he could set aside any opinion he might hold and decide the case on the evidence, and should the juror's protestation of impartiality have been believed. Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1036, 104 S.Ct. 2885, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984). A trial court's determination of a juror's credibility is entitled to special deference. Id. at 1038, 104 S.Ct. 2885; Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 426, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) (noting that in determining whether a juror is biased, deference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror). As previously noted, a trial court's finding that a juror was impartial is entitled to a presumption of correctness, rebuttable only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Patton, 467 U.S. at 1036, 104 S.Ct. 2885 (noting that juror impartiality is a question of historical fact). Further, the question for this Court is simply whether the state trial court's decision was fairly supported by the record, not whether it was right or wrong in its determination of impartiality. Witt, 469 U.S. at 424, 105 S.Ct. 844. 53 The McDonough test governs cases where it is alleged that a juror intentionally concealed information. Zerka v. Green, 49 F.3d 1181, 1185 (6th Cir.1995). 4 In McDonough, the Supreme Court held that, in order to obtain a new trial based on a juror's non-disclosure during voir dire, the defendant must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. Id. at 556, 104 S.Ct. 845. The McDonough court explained that [t]he motives for concealing information may vary, but only those reasons that affect a juror's impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial. Id. 54 In McDonough, a juror failed to reveal during voir dire in a products liability case that his son had broken his leg as a result of an exploding tire when asked whether anyone in his immediate family had ever sustained a severe injury. McDonough, 464 U.S. at 549-50, 104 S.Ct. 845. In holding that the respondents were not entitled to a new trial, the Supreme Court found that the juror apparently believed that his son's broken leg sustained as a result of an exploding tire was not such an injury. Id. at 555, 104 S.Ct. 845. The Court noted that jurors may be uncertain as to the meaning of terms which are relatively easily understood by lawyers and judges. Id. 55 We agree with the district court that the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling is not contrary to the rule of McDonough. As the district court noted, Harris explained that under the court's definition, she believed that she had not been a victim of a violent crime. Further, as the district court observed, upon hearing her explanation and observing her demeanor, the trial judge accepted Harris's explanation, and acknowledged that the court's definition of violent crime was not entirely clear. Thus, as in McDonough, juror Harris's misunderstanding of a legal term did not denote dishonesty. 56 In short, the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in retaining juror Harris is not contrary to the foregoing clearly established Federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, the trial judge examined the witness to determine if she was impartial. The trial judge found as a matter of fact that Harris had not been intentionally deceitful during the original voir dire, that she could set aside her personal feelings, and that she was impartial. Thus, consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent, the trial judge established Harris's impartiality, during his in-chambers voir dire. Harris repeatedly indicated that she could be a fair and impartial juror, and the trial judge made a credibility determination that her misunderstanding of the term violence was honest. The trial court's fact findings are presumed correct, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e); Patton. The Ohio Supreme Court's decision is also not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented to the state trial court. 57 Finally, it must be remembered that defense counsel was given the opportunity to question Harris directly during the in-chambers voir dire and to place any objections on the record, but failed to do so. Apparently, defense counsel did not doubt her veracity at the time either. The district court properly rejected this claim. 58