Opinion ID: 4583195
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Text: Teasley filed a pro se habeas petition in state court, followed by numerous amendments. In the petition, Teasley requested relief on several grounds; none included juror bias. The court held an evidentiary hearing at which Teasley testified 6 USCA11 Case: 19-12224 Date Filed: 11/03/2020 Page: 7 of 24 and offered additional documentary evidence. Teasley’s former appellate counsel did not testify, but the court admitted a transcript of her deposition upon written questions. Six months later and after retaining an attorney to represent him at the state habeas proceedings, Teasley filed a motion to reopen the record and to amend his petition to “add only one ‘new’ ground for relief . . . that a biased juror served on Mr. Teasley’s jury[,] . . . present[ing] a simple legal question[:] . . . whether Mr. Teasley’s constitutional rights were violated by the presence of a biased juror on his jury.” The court granted both motions over the state’s objection. Teasley then filed an amended state habeas petition, alleging, among other things, that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the presence of Juror Donaldson on direct appeal. The court held a second evidentiary hearing, at which Teasley was allowed to present evidence in support of his additional claim. He introduced four exhibits and called each of the three defense attorneys from his trial to testify. Further testimony from Teasley’s former appellate counsel was also admitted into evidence through a deposition transcript. Teasley made no attempt to present testimony from Juror Donaldson. At the hearing, the defendants’ trial attorneys explained that, because the Teasley brothers’ defenses were not antagonistic, they conducted jury selection 7 USCA11 Case: 19-12224 Date Filed: 11/03/2020 Page: 8 of 24 collaboratively. Christopher Teasley’s trial counsel recounted that, although he asked several questions of the venire panel, he also relied on the attorneys for Emory and Tyrone Teasley because they were more familiar with the jury pool. He testified that, after questioning the panel, all three defense attorneys met and reviewed the prospective jurors’ responses. Emory Teasley’s attorney testified that the team had considered Juror Donaldson a favorable juror for the defense. She had placed a “plus sign” by Juror Donaldson’s name on her trial notes to mark him as a favorable juror. Her notes indicated that he owned guns and had been hunting. She explained that the defense attorneys had made a strategic decision to argue that Tyrone Teasley fired his gun in self-defense, and they were looking specifically for jurors who were not opposed to firearms. The state habeas court denied Teasley’s petition in 2016. The court agreed with Teasley that his appellate counsel performed deficiently. But the court held that Teasley’s claim failed because there was not a reasonable probability that the outcome of his appeal would have been different if his appellate counsel had raised the juror bias issue on direct appeal. The court recognized that it would be an error not to excuse a juror “who answers questions during voir dire in a manner which unequivocally demonstrates partiality.” But the court found that “the trial record does not demonstrate actual bias on the part of juror Donaldson.” Instead, the court reasoned that “Donaldson’s responses, and lack of responses, are equivocal.” The 8 USCA11 Case: 19-12224 Date Filed: 11/03/2020 Page: 9 of 24 court held that it “need not address the issue of whether Juror Donaldson could have been compelled to testify in a post-conviction hearing” because it “must base its decision” on the record Teasley created. Based on this record, the state court found “that the single response from Donaldson cited by petitioner is insufficient” to establish bias. The Georgia Supreme Court denied Teasley’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal.