Opinion ID: 77702
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Bailiff's Comment

Text: 21 Crowe alleged in his state habeas petition that, during the sentencing trial, defense counsel stood between the jury box and Crowe, and the jury complained to one of the male courtroom bailiffs. According to the one juror affidavit that mentions this incident, the bailiff replied that often-times defense attorneys will purposely block the jury's view of the client if the client is not going to testify. The state habeas court admitted the affidavit for the purpose of establishing the fact of the bailiff's comment but found that the incident never occurred. 22 Crowe has not rebutted the presumed correctness of this factual finding by clear and convincing evidence. In opposition to the one juror affidavit, taken seven years after the trial, the record contains denials that the incident occurred from three other jurors and the two female bailiffs who attended the jury at all times. Crowe suffered no prejudice from an event that did not occur. Crowe again argues that prejudice should have been presumed under Remmer, but Crowe received an evidentiary hearing in the state habeas court. In the light of the special deference owed to the findings of fact by the state habeas court, the district court was entitled to deny Crowe another evidentiary hearing on this issue.