Opinion ID: 566790
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims of State Law Violations

Text: 42 Tejada contends that the district court erred in denying him habeas relief based on certain violations of Florida laws or rules that occurred during his trial: (1) denial of a motion to depose a juror; (2) admission of extrinsic offense evidence; (3) admission of a coconspirator's hearsay statement; and (4) deficient jury instructions on conspiracy and judicial comments on the evidence of conspiracy. We disagree. 43 Questions of state law rarely raise issues of federal constitutional significance, because [a] state's interpretation of its own laws provides no basis for federal habeas corpus relief, since no question of a constitutional nature is involved. Carrizales v. Wainwright, 699 F.2d 1053, 1053-54 (11th Cir.1983) (citations omitted). We review questions of state law in federal habeas proceedings only to determine whether the alleged errors were so critical or important to the outcome of the trial to render the entire trial fundamentally unfair. Id. at 1054 (defective jury charge raises issue of constitutional dimension only if it renders the entire trial fundamentally unfair); see also Futch v. Dugger, 874 F.2d at 1487 (improperly admitted evidence must be inflammatory or gruesome, and so critical that its introduction denied petitioner a fundamentally fair trial). [T]he established standard of fundamental fairness [when reviewing state evidentiary rulings] is that habeas relief will be granted only if the state trial error was 'material in the sense of a crucial, critical, highly significant factor.'  Shaw v. Boney, 695 F.2d 528, 530 (11th Cir.1983) (quoting Hills v. Henderson, 529 F.2d 397, 401 (5th Cir.1976)). Based on these standards, we now address Tejada's claims.
44 In the course of post-trial proceedings, the trial court denied Tejada's motion to depose juror Rhonda Pew who was quoted in a newspaper article as stating that, A couple of us thought we would save his neck. Then it started to look hopeless. Defense counsel argued, in the context of suggesting juror misconduct requiring Pew's deposition, that this quote implied that jurors discussed the case before jury deliberations were properly to begin because Pew did not participate in deliberations. 14 On this speculative basis, 15 Tejada contends that the trial court erred in denying the defense's motion to depose Pew. The State responds that the magistrate correctly determined that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion because Pew did not deliberate. The State also argues that this is an issue of state law which provides no basis for federal habeas relief. 45 Construing Tejada's pro se petition liberally, we read Tejada's claim as one of juror misconduct. While this claim implicates federal constitutional concern for an impartial jury, we have stated in more factually compelling circumstances that the trial court has discretion to determine whether evidence of premature deliberation warrants an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Cuthel, 903 F.2d 1381, 1382 (11th Cir.1990) (affirming federal district court's denial of post-trial investigation of preliminary deliberation where defendant received note from juror stating we were pressured into making our decision); see also United States v. Edwards, 696 F.2d 1277, 1282 (11th Cir.1983). To justify a post-trial hearing involving the trial's jurors, the defendant must do more than speculate; he must show 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence ... that a specific, non-speculative impropriety has occurred.'  Cuthel, 903 F.2d at 1382 (quoting United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 543 (2d Cir.1989) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Unless extraneous information has been brought to jurors' attention or outside influences have been brought to bear upon them, federal courts refuse to question jurors after the verdict is rendered--especially when the inquiry concerns juror misconduct before deliberations. Id.; see also United States v. Griek, 920 F.2d 840, 843 (11th Cir.1991); Fed.R.Evid. 606(b). 46 Taking this federal practice as the limit of what is required by federal constitutional concerns for an impartial jury, we conclude that Tejada has stated no claim for habeas relief. He has failed to demonstrate specifically and without speculation that jury impropriety has occurred; more important, he has failed to demonstrate, or even to allege, the presence of extraneous information or outside influence.
47 Tejada says that the district court erred in not finding that his trial was made fundamentally unfair by the state trial court's admission of extrinsic offense that Tejada had once put a pillowcase over Megginnson's head, tied her up and threatened to kill her. Ortiz and Megginnson testified about the event and indicated that Tejada did it because his gun was missing and he thought Megginnson might have taken it. 16 Tejada argues that the evidence was improperly admitted Williams' Rule evidence 17 because it only served the purpose of convincing the jury that he had a propensity to commit violent crimes. We express no opinion on the propriety of admitting this evidence because, regardless of that question, the admission of this evidence did not deprive Tejada of a fundamentally fair trial. The evidence was not material to his conviction in the sense of a crucial, critical, highly selective factor, Shaw, 695 F.2d at 530, because the state presented far more powerful evidence of Tejada's guilt through, among other things, the testimony of Megginnson and Alexander's wife.
48 Tejada argues that his trial was made fundamentally unfair by the admission of coconspirator Frank's hearsay statements to Alexander's wife that he and Tejada had been paid to do the job--implying a contract killing--and that they had shot Alexander between the eyes. Under Florida law, a coconspirator's hearsay statement is admissible if the statement was made during the course, and in furtherance, of the conspiracy. Fla.Stat. § 90.803(18)(e). Tejada contends that these hearsay statements were improperly admitted because they were not made during the course of the conspiracy: at the time the statements were made, Alexander had already been killed, and the conspiracy to kill him had ended. The conspiracy, however, encompassed two objects: to kill Alexander and to burglarize Alexander's house. Frank made his statements to Alexander's wife after Alexander was shot but before the burglary was consummated. The conspiracy was clearly not complete when the statements were made, and, thus, the statements were properly admitted. Even if the statements were improperly admitted, we are not persuaded that, given all the evidence the state presented against Tejada, the admission of the statements of Tejada's coconspirator rendered the entire trial fundamentally unfair.4. Deficient Jury Instructions and Court's Comment on Conspiracy Evidence 49 Tejada also contends that the trial court's allegedly deficient jury instructions on conspiracy and the admission of the coconspirator's statements, as well as the court's comments on the evidence of conspiracy, rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. 18 He relies on Boyd v. State, 389 So.2d 642, 647 (Fla.App. 2d Dist.1980), 19 to argue that, when a coconspirator's hearsay statement is admitted, an instruction on conspiracy must be given which defines conspiracy, explains the legal consequences of proving conspiracy and instructs the jury that they must determine whether a conspiracy has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Tejada argues that his trial was rendered fundamentally unfair because the trial court did not tell the jurors that it was their responsibility to determine whether a conspiracy had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree with Tejada's application of Boyd to his case. In Boyd, the hearsay statements of the defendant's coconspirators were used to impose vicarious liability on the defendant based on his participation in the conspiracy; in this case, Tejada's coconspirator's statements were admitted to aid in establishing elements of the state's case relating to premeditation and intent. 20 Nor do we believe that the failure of the court to give such an instruction rendered the trial fundamentally unfair: the evidence against Tejada, apart from the statements of his coconspirator, compelled a conviction. 50 We also disagree with Tejada's contention that the court's statement that it believed the State had other independent evidence of the conspiracy rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. The court's statement was anticipatory: it merely explained to the jury that the independent evidence of conspiracy had not yet been introduced and that the coconspirator's hearsay statement had been admitted because the State indicated that it had such independent evidence that it would present later. The court's statement that it would take action if the State failed to present the independent evidence of conspiracy reinforces that message. We also note that the trial court, immediately before dismissing the jury to deliberate, instructed them that nothing it had said in the course of the trial should be considered any intimation as to the verdict they should deliver.