Opinion ID: 1222518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Tampering Evidence

Text: The petitioner asserts trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a hearing concerning improper juror contact. [9] Following the jury's verdict, it was discovered that one of the jurors was contacted during the course of the trial by Betty Kelly, a defense witness. [10] Prior to deliberations, Ms. Kelly called a juror twice in one evening and offered the juror's son a deal on a used car if the juror could do what she could to help the petitioner. Upon learning of the jury tampering, trial counsel did not investigate the matter or request a hearing. Instead, he reported the incident to the trial court. The trial court interviewed the juror and determined no harm occurred. No record was made of this interaction, so we do not know what questions were asked of the juror. The petitioner did not learn of the incident until after the trial court's decision. The petitioner stated that trial counsel told his family he did not want to get the petitioner's hopes up until after the judge ruled. At the habeas corpus hearing, new evidence had come to light on this issue that was not available to this Court on direct appeal. The juror testified at the habeas corpus hearing that the night before jury deliberations, she received two phone calls from Ms. Kelly trying to elicit help for the petitioner. After reaching the verdict, this juror told the other members of the jury panel about her conversations with Ms. Kelly. She then learned that another woman juror was also contacted by Ms. Kelly. The juror stated that she did not tell the trial court of this second juror because he did not inquire about the other jurors. She further testified that she felt set-up by Ms. Kelly and the petitioner. When asked to explain, the juror stated that she learned of the petitioner's relationship with Ms. Kelly [11] and that she felt like they had got together and said, hey, we'll just use her. The juror testified that she believed the petitioner was attempting to improperly influence her through Ms. Kelly. The juror finally stated that the petitioner's trial counsel did not take a statement from her regarding this matter. Furthermore, she could not recall having any detailed discussions with trial counsel. The petitioner maintains that no reasonably prudent attorney would allow such a discussion to take place off the record and out of the presence of a defendant. [12] He contends that, had an adequate record been developed on this issue, he would have been granted a new trial in light of the fact the juror admitted she believed the petitioner was trying to improperly influence her through Ms. Kelly. Additionally, in the absence of a record, the trial court's ruling essentially was rendered unreviewable. When questioned about the failure to request a hearing upon receiving information of jury tampering, trial counsel stated he did not request a hearing because he feared the petitioner could be charged with jury tampering. [13] As we said in Wickline v. House , [w]e find this reasoning incomprehensible in light of the charges that the petitioner stood convicted. 188 WVa. at 348 n. 9, 424 S.E.2d at 583 n. 9. We can imagine no scenario excusing this failure. The possibility of a jury tampering charge of one convicted of first degree murder and malicious wounding could hardly be a justification for the failure to explore an issue that, if successful, would lead to the reversal of the convictions. [14] Common sense suggests that investigation into jury tampering charges could easily have produced a ground for reversal of the conviction. An attorney clearly is obligated to investigate all reasonable avenues that could result in reversal of his client's first degree murder conviction. See State ex rel. Leach v. Hamilton, 166 W.Va. 383, 280 S.E.2d 62, 65 (1980). Because counsel failed in this regard, his behavior was not objectively reasonable under Strickland/Miller. Nevertheless, we find the error was cured by the extensive hearing and development of these facts in the habeas corpus hearing, albeit six years later. When these circumstances appear, a case for harmless error is made. To be clear, under the specific facts of this case, we have no difficulty concluding that no reasonable attorney would have: (a) failed to investigate this confirmed incident of jury tampering and (b) failed to request a hearing to evaluate what prejudice it may have had on the petitioner and to develop the record. These omissions fall outside the range of professionally competent assistance. Counsel's representation at this hearing amounted in every respect to no representation at all, and this total absence of advocacy falls outside Strickland/Miller 's wide range of professionally competent assistance. However, we do not believe that the petitioner has demonstrated the kind of prejudice required under Strickland/Miller; and Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). In determining the test for prejudice, the Supreme Court in Lockhart stated prejudice is whether the result of the proceedings was fundamentally unfair or unreliable. Of course, the proceedings referred to was the trial itself and the sentencing phase. We must determine whether the evidence adduced at the habeas corpus hearing demonstrates the petitioner met his burden of proving a breakdown of the adversarial process affected ... [his] discrete trial rights  because trial counsel neglected to explore whether one of the jurors was prejudiced, partially due to her belief the petitioner tried to set her up. Lockhart, 506 U.S. at 379, 113 S.Ct. at 848, 122 L.Ed.2d at 196 (Stevens, J., dissenting). (Emphasis added). We do not believe that each time a problem is presented to a trial court and an ex parte in camera interview is conducted that it involves a critical stage of the criminal proceedings. See LaChappelle v. Moran, 699 F.2d 560, 565 (1st Cir.1983) ( in camera conference not a stage of trial where judge sought to exercise his extraordinary powers to administer the trial in a just manner). On a federal level, the claim raised on this issue might be foreclosed by United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 105 S.Ct. 1482, 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985). There, the Supreme Court considered a very similar ex parte in camera meeting between a district court judge and a juror in which a juror was questioned about his impartiality. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that this meeting contravened the Constitution, stating: [T]he mere occurrence of an ex parte conversation between a trial judge and a juror does not constitute a deprivation of any constitutional right. The defense has no constitutional right to be present at every interaction between a judge and a juror[.] 470 U.S. at 526 105 S.Ct. at 1484, 84 L.Ed.2d at 490, quoting Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 125-26, 104 S.Ct. 453, 459, 78 L.Ed.2d 267, 277 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring). (Emphasis added). [15] The issue raised by the petitioner is slightly different. He does not insist on his counsel's right or even his right, for that matter, to be present. Rather, he asserts that his counsel dropped the ball in not requesting further proceedings to pinpoint any infirmities that may have been extraneously injected into his trial. To be sure, however, there are times after trial that the post-trial proceedings do constitute a critical stage. The Supreme Court's decision in Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), which held there is no constitutional right to post-conviction counsel on appeal from state habeas trial court judgment, did not limit the right to effective post-trial counsel, as distinct from post-conviction. We believe we should take a cautious approach in this case and assume, without deciding, that because a defendant is entitled to counsel under Section 14 of Article III in all such critical stages, [16] if he in no way waived his right to counsel, he is entitled to effective assistance of counsel in a post-trial proceeding where a juror is being interviewed by the trial court concerning extraneous prejudicial information and events that occurred during the trial. Proceeding from the assumption made above, we find that counsel's performance fell woefully below the objective standard of reasonableness that is required in criminal proceedings. [17] A finding of unprofessional conduct, however, does not end our inquiry. In order to obtain relief under Strickland/Miller, it is not sufficient that a petitioner only point to his or her attorney's deficient performance. In addition, he or she must demonstrate that the complained of deficiency resulted in prejudice or, as discussed above, a reasonable probability that in the absence of error the result of the proceedings would have been different, Strickland, supra, and was fundamentally unfair or unreliable. Lockhart, supra . This case is not a denial of counsel in which we presume prejudice, it is an instance in which appointed counsel performed inadequately and prejudice must be proved by the petitioner. In Cronic, the Supreme Court indicated that an attorney's representation could be presumed ineffective under the Sixth Amendment if, by failing to appear at a critical stage or otherwise, he or she failed to subject the prosecution's case to adversarial testing. 466 U.S. at 659, 104 S.Ct. at 2047, 80 L.Ed.2d at 668. To establish a violation under Cronic, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she suffered the equivalent of a complete absence of counsel. We believe that the petitioner failed to identify how he was prejudiced by the failure of his counsel to request a full blown hearing on this matter at the time the issue was brought to the trial court's attention. Assessments of prejudice are necessarily fact-intensive determinations peculiar to the circumstances of each case. A full blown hearing was conducted in the habeas corpus proceedings, and we find as a matter of law that counsel did an outstanding job in developing the record at that hearing. At the hearing for this post-conviction relief, the very evidence that would have been offered in a proceeding to set aside the verdict was considered and rejected by the trial court. Because the petitioner's burden of proof is the same had the issue been raised on a motion for a new trial or in the habeas proceeding, we do not see what effect the delay had on the outcome. [18] In other words, the petitioner eventually got his day in court and we are not told of any prejudice suffered by the petitioner that was proximately caused by the delay. [19] This conclusion does not mean that we condone trial counsel's failure to request a full blown hearing on this issue; we simply decline to hold that such conduct arose during a critical stage which would constitute a per se deficiency violative of Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution. In sum, with respect to the prejudice prong of Strickland/Miller, we cannot find there was a reasonable probability that but for counsel's alleged errors the outcome of the petitioner's challenge to jury tampering would have been different.