Court Opinion

ID: 9470809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:16:34.889213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:06.934320
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT
JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge:
Petitioner Jon E. Yount was convicted in 1966 of first degree murder and rape in the Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Jail Delivery of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. On direct appeal the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that petitioner had not received adequate warnings against self-incrimination. It reversed the judgment of sentence and granted a new trial. Commonwealth v. Yount, 435 Pa. 276, 256 A.2d 464 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 925, 90 S.Ct. 918, 25 L.Ed.2d 104 (1970) (“Yount I”). After a retrial before the same court, petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and was again sentenced to life imprisonment. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on direct appeal affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Yount, 455 Pa. 303, 314 A.2d 242 (1974) (“Yount II”).
In 1981 petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in United States District Court.1 Petitioner alleged, inter alia, that his conviction had been obtained in violation of his fifth and fourteenth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his sixth and fourteenth amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.2 The federal magistrate concluded that petitioner’s privilege against self-incrimination had not been violated, but recommended *959that the petition be granted because petitioner had been denied a fair and impartial jury. App. at 124a-41a. The district court agreed on the former issue, rejected the magistrate’s recommendation on the latter issue, and denied the petition. Yount v. Patton, 537 F.Supp. 873 (W.D.Pa.1982).
We agree with the district court that petitioner’s privilege against self-incrimination was not infringed. We conclude, however, that the petitioner’s right to trial by a fair and impartial jury was violated. We will therefore remand that portion of the case to the district court.
I. SELF-INCRIMINATION
A. Facts3
During the early evening of April 28, 1966, the body of Pamela Rimer, an 18-year old high school student, was found in a wooded area near her home in Luthersburg, Clearfield County. There were numerous wounds about her head, apparently caused by a blunt instrument. There were also cuts caused by a sharp instrument on her throat and neck. One of her stockings was knotted and tied around her neck. An autopsy showed that she had died of strangulation when blood from the throat and neck wounds was drawn into the lungs. Except for her stocking and shoe she remained fully clothed. The autopsy revealed no indication that she had been sexually assaulted.
Neighbors gave state police a description of a station wagon which they had seen at approximately the time and place at which the body was found. E.g., Testimony of Trial beginning November 17,1970, at 143-48 (“T.T.”). Sometime after two o’clock on the morning of April 29, 1966, state policemen learned that petitioner, the victim’s high school mathematics teacher, had on prior occasions been seen in a station wagon fitting that description. T.T. at 290-93; Transcript of Proceedings — August 17, 1970, at 17-18, 20-21 (“T.P.”).
At approximately 5:45 that morning, petitioner voluntarily appeared at the State Police Substation in DuBois, Clearfield County. The occupants of the substation had participated in the investigation of the Rimer homicide, T.T. at 198-201, 203-05, 255-56, but had gone to sleep unaware of any link between the homicide and petitioner or his vehicle. T.T. at 275, 277; T.P. at 13, 20.4 Petitioner rang the doorbell. A trooper awoke, opened the door and asked whether he could be of assistance. Petitioner stated, “I am the man you are looking for.” The trooper asked petitioner to repeat what he had said, app. at 11a; T.T. at 250-51, and then asked whether petitioner was referring to “the incident in Lu-thersburg.” Petitioner said yes. The trooper then asked petitioner to come in and be seated.
Leaving petitioner unattended, the trooper went to a back bedroom and roused a detective and a second trooper. The first trooper informed them that “there was a man in the front that said we are looking for him” in connection with the Luthers-burg incident. See T.T. at 276; T.P. at 6. The first trooper then returned to the front office where petitioner had removed his coat, hat and gloves. The trooper asked petitioner for his identification. Petitioner gave the trooper his wallet, which the trooper returned after removing petitioner’s automobile operator’s license. T.T. at 252.
*960Shortly thereafter, the detective and the second trooper entered the front office. The detective was handed petitioner’s license and learned that petitioner was Jon Yount. App. at 12a; T.T. at 259, 262-63, 271. The detective requested that petitioner be seated inside a smaller adjacent office, and gave petitioner something to eat. See Yount I, 435 Pa. at 278, 256 A.2d at 465; T.P. at 15. The detective asked, “Why are we looking for you?” Petitioner replied, “I killed that girl.” Upon hearing that answer, the detective inquired, “What girl?”, and petitioner responded, “Pamela Rimer.”
The detective then asked, “How did you kill this girl?” Petitioner answered, “I struck her with a wrench and I choked her.” At that time the detective undertook to advise petitioner of his rights. The detective, however, failed to tell petitioner of his right to court-appointed counsel if he could not afford his own attorney. The detective then conducted an interrogation regarding the details of the crime. At some point the second trooper searched petitioner and confiscated his penknife. T.T. at 265-66, 267-68, 272-73.5 Petitioner gave his first written confession to the detective. Later the district attorney, after giving similarly inadequate warnings, questioned petitioner and obtained another written confession.
B. State Proceedings and Proceedings Below
Before the first trial petitioner moved to suppress his statements and confessions as violative of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). After' a hearing the motion was denied. The petitioner’s statements and confessions were admitted in the first trial over petitioner’s objections.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the warnings given by the detective and district attorney were inadequate under Miranda. Yount I, 435 Pa. at 279, 256 A.2d at 465 (Roberts, J., plurality opinion). The court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that the confessions were volunteered. “After indicating a willingness to talk, [petitioner] was interrogated about details of the crime, and his formal confession followed.” 435 Pa. at 279-80, 256 A.2d at 465 (emphasis in original); see 435 Pa. at 281, 256 A.2d at 468 (Jones, C.J., concurring). The court found the confessions invalid and granted a new trial. 435 Pa. at 281, 256 A.2d at 466.
Prior to the second trial petitioner requested that his oral and written statements be suppressed. The trial court on the authority of Yount I suppressed the written confessions, as well as the question “How did you kill this girl?” and its answer. The trial court ruled, however, that petitioner’s statement “I killed that girl” and his identification of “that girl” as “Pamela Rimer” were admissible under Yount I. App. at 748a, 755a. It concluded that petitioner’s statements were made before petitioner was in custody. App. at 755a.
On appeal the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not determine whether petitioner was in “custody” when he made the statements to the detective. Yount II, 455 Pa. at 311 n. 4, 314 A.2d at 247 n. 4. Instead it ruled that the statements were volunteered and not the product of interrogation. The court said that the detective’s first question, “Why are we looking for you?”, was simply an extemporaneous response “of neutral character.” 455 Pa. at 310, 314 A.2d at 246. In the court’s view the detective’s question “What girl?” after petitioner had responded, “I killed that girl,” was merely “a clarifying inquiry.” Id. The supreme court therefore concluded that the questions were not calculated, expected or likely to elicit an incriminating response. 455 Pa. at 309, 314 A.2d at 246.
In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner again argued that his fifth and fourteenth amendment privilege against self-incrimination had been violated by the admission of his responses to the *961detective’s questions. The magistrate ruled that the responses were properly admitted because only after those responses, when “the police recognized that petitioner was present to confess his participation in a crime, did his presence become custodial.” App. at 132a. The magistrate did not consider whether the questions constituted interrogation. The district court adopted the magistrate’s findings. 537 F.Supp. at 875.
C. Discussion
Miranda held that unless the government has advised a defendant of his rights, it cannot put into evidence statements stemming from the “custodial interrogation” of the defendant. 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. The Supreme Court defined “custodial interrogation” to mean
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
Id. (note omitted).
Petitioner argues on appeal that his statements “I killed that girl” and “Pamela Rimer” must be excluded as the products of custodial interrogation. He contends that the detective’s questions constituted “interrogation,” and asserts that the state policemen would not have allowed him to leave the substation when the questions were posed. We need not consider whether the questions “Why are we looking for you?” and “What girl?” constituted interrogation under Miranda because we conclude that petitioner was not in “custody” until after he had answered those questions. See Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 345-46, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 1615-1616, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976); United States v. Mesa, 638 F.2d 582, 588 (3d Cir.1980) (opinion of Seitz, C.J.).
To determine whether an individual is in custody, we use the “objective test of whether the ‘government has in some meaningful way imposed restraints on [a person’s] freedom of action.’ ” Steigler v. Anderson, 496 F.2d 793, 798 (3d Cir.) (quoting United States v. Jaskiewicz, 433 F.2d 415, 419 (3d Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1021, 91 S.Ct. 582, 27 L.Ed.2d 632 (1971)), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1002, 95 S.Ct. 320, 42 L.Ed.2d 277 (1974). Where, as here, the individual has not been openly arrested when the statements are made,
something must be said or done by the authorities, either in their manner of approach or in the tone or extent of their questioning, which indicates that they would not have heeded a request to depart.
Id. at 799 (quoting United States v. Hall, 421 F.2d 540, 545 (2d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 990, 90 S.Ct. 1123, 25 L.Ed.2d 398 (1970)); accord Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) (per curiam); see Mesa, 638 F.2d at 587 n. 4 (opinion of Seitz, C.J.). When the questioning occurs in a police station we must scrutinize the circumstances surrounding the statements with extreme care for any taint of psychological compulsion or intimidation. Steigler, 496 F.2d at 799.
In making our determination, we are mindful of the Supreme Court’s caution that “custody” must not be read too broadly:
[P]olice officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect.
Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495, 97 S.Ct. at 714; accord Steigler, 496 F.2d at 799. In particular we note the Court’s statement in Miranda:
There is no requirement that police stop a person who enters a police station and states that he wishes to confess to a crime, or a person who calls the police to offer a confession or any other statements he desires to make. Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today.
384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1630 (note omitted).
Petitioner came voluntarily and on his own initiative to the substation. The state police did not know why he was there. The first trooper left petitioner unattended *962while petitioner on his own accord removed his outer clothing. The detective testified that before he posed the questions he would have returned petitioner’s operator’s license and allowed him to leave had petitioner so requested. T.P. at 15-16. On this record we have no difficulty in concluding that petitioner was not in custody when the detective asked, “Why are we looking for you?” Sullivan v. Alabama, 666 F.2d 478, 482 (11th Cir.1982); see Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495, 97 S.Ct. at 714; Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 325, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 1096, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969); Barfield v. Alabama, 552 F.2d 1114, 1118 (5th Cir.1977). The admission of petitioner’s response to that question therefore did not violate his fifth and fourteenth amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Petitioner’s response, “I killed that girl,” was obviously highly incriminating. Although such an incriminating response undoubtedly heightened the detective’s suspicion, it is police compulsion, and not the strength of police suspicions, which places a suspect in custody. See Beckwith, 425 U.S. at 346-47, 96 S.Ct. at 1616-1617.
The more cause for believing the suspect committed the crime, the greater the tendency to bear down in interrogation and to create the kind of atmosphere of significant restraint that triggers Miranda .... But this is simply one circumstance, to be weighed with all the others.
Steigler, 496 F.2d at 799-800 (quoting Hall, 421 F.2d at 545).
The detective testified that petitioner remained free to leave the substation when the detective asked, “What girl?” T.P. at 5. The detective explained that only after petitioner gave the name of the girl and how he had killed her could the detective determine that the petitioner was not merely seeking personal aggrandizement by confessing to a sensational crime in which he had no part. T.P. at 3-4. Petitioner, on the other hand, does not allege that the state police did “anything different” after he had stated, “I killed that girl.” See Brief for Petitioner on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 19-20, 22-23 (“Brief for Petitioner”). Instead petitioner takes the position that he was in custody from the moment he identified himself, and that “either all the statements were voluntary or all were involuntary.” Id. at 19; see Appellant’s Brief at 33. In addition, we can find no evidence that the detective at that juncture used any additional “force or intimidation, physical or psychological, actual or implied,” Government of Virgin Islands v. Berne, 412 F.2d 1055,1060 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 837, 90 S.Ct. 96, 24 L.Ed.2d 87 (1969).
Both the state trial court and the federal magistrate concluded that petitioner was not in custody until he responded, “Pamela Rimer.” The district court agreed. After examining the peculiar factual circumstances of this case we cannot conclude that the district court erred. We therefore hold that petitioner’s privilege against self-incrimination was not violated by the admission of his statements “I killed that girl” and “Pamela Rimer.”
II. FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY
A. Facts and State Proceedings
Clearfield County is a rural county with a population of approximately seventy thousand served by two newspapers with a total circulation of approximately twenty-five thousand. On April 29, 1966, each of the newspapers devoted its front page to the Rimer homicide and to petitioner’s appearance at the substation. Both newspapers gave front-page coverage to the pre-trial proceedings, the voir dire of 104 veniremen, and the nine-day trial. In the DuBois Courier Express the publicity culminated in seventeen consecutive editions each bearing banner headlines and carrying at least two feature articles. The Clearfield Progress gave the case similarly intense coverage. As the papers related, public interest in the proceedings was unprecedented; The Progress later adjudged petitioner’s trial the top news item of 1966.6
*963The coverage was as detailed as it was extensive, see app. at 135a, 136a. The newspapers related in full petitioner’s detailed written confessions as well as his testimony at trial retelling the. homicide. They also detailed petitioner’s defense of temporary insanity, the charge and evidence of rape, and finally petitioner’s conviction on October 7,1966, of both rape and first-degree murder.
Petitioner’s cause continued to receive front-page coverage at every step of his appeal. Banner headlines announced the reversal of the conviction in Yount I. The dissent was reprinted in full, and a local radio program became a forum in which callers expressed their hostility to petitioner. As the second trial approached, newspaper coverage increased. The selection of each juror merited an article and often a profile. By the close of voir dire the two newspapers had printed sixty-six front-page articles on the appeal and retrial.7
Petitioner was returned to Clearfield for retrial before the same judge. On May 5, 1970, petitioner requested a change of venue. He claimed that the publicity which had saturated the county since the murder, and the continuing discussion of the case among residents, made a fair trial in Clear-field County impossible. In particular, petitioner alleged that the dissemination of prejudicial information outside of evidence was so widespread that it could not be eradicated from the minds of potential jurors. The prosecution argued in response that the case had received so much publicity across the state that it would be useless to change the venue. The trial court found that after the initiation of the appeal the newspapers had merely publicized the actions of the courts “without editorial comment of any kind.” App. at 748a-49a. It denied the petition for change of venue on September 12, 1970.
Jury selection began on November 4, 1970, and took ten days, seven jury panels, 292 veniremen and 1186 pages of testimony. One hundred and twenty-five of the 292 veniremen were excused because they had not been chosen properly. Four others were dismissed for cause before they were questioned on the case. Of the 163 remaining veniremen who were questioned, all but two had read of the case in the newspapers, had heard about it on radio or television, or were otherwise familiar with it. See app. at 135a, 137a. When asked whether they had discussed the case, had heard it discussed, or had heard others express their opinion as to petitioner’s guilt or innocence, over ninety percent said that they had. See app. at 135a, 137a.8
Of the 163 veniremen questioned on the case, 121 were dismissed for cause.9 Ninety-six of those 121 veniremen were successfully challenged after they testified that they had firm and fixed opinions10 which could not be changed regardless of what evidence was presented. See app. at 135a & n. 13.11 An additional 21 of the 121 veniremen were dismissed for cause after they said that they had an opinion which they could change only if the petitioner could convince them to do so. See app. at 135a-36a & nn. 14, 15.12 Thus 117 out of the 163 *964veniremen questioned were successfully challenged for cause after they said they could not set their opinion aside before entering the jury box.
There were also nine other veniremen, unsuccessfully challenged for cause by petitioner, who indicated that they had an opinion which they could change only if the petitioner could convince them to do so.13 When we combine those nine with the 117 veniremen dismissed for cause, we find that a total of 126 out of the 163 veniremen questioned on the case were willing to admit on voir dire that they would carry their opinion into the jury box.14
Voir dire gave other indications of the depth of community sentiment. One venireman, the wife of a minister, testified that she had heard too many opinions to be sure of her own. She was then asked:
Q. Would your presence in serving as a juror create a difficulty in your parish?
A. Why yes — when people heard my name was on for this — countless people of the church have come to me and said they hoped I would take — the stand I would take in case I was called. I have had a prejudice built up from the people in the church.
Q. Is this prejudice, has it been adverse to Mr. Yount?
A. Yes it was. They all say he had a fair trial and he got a fair sentence. He’s lucky he didn’t get the chair.
******
[T]he church people — I haven’t asked for any of this but they discuss it in every group — but they say now since you are chosen and you will be there we expect you to follow through.
Q. Notwithstanding what the court would tell you, you feel you would be subject to the retributions or retaliation of these people—
A. I think I would hear about it.
App. at 410a, 412a. Another prospective juror said that his opinion had been erased by the passage of time, but his daughter-in-law later testified that he had left for jury duty voicing great animosity toward petitioner. App. at 430a, 527a-28a.
After the first jury panel was exhausted, petitioner again moved for a change of venue. Although more than three quarters of the veniremen already questioned had admitted that they would carry an opinion into the jury box, the court orally denied the motion. On November 14, 1970, the trial court rejected petitioner’s written motion for a change of venue. In its memorandum opinion, the trial court explained that the still-incomplete voir dire had taken so much time and covered so many veniremen because the court had been lenient in permitting extended examination of prospective jurors and in granting challenges for cause. App. at 194a-95a. It said that “almost all, if not all, jurors seated had no prior or present fixed opinions.” App. at 196a. The court noted
that it has been 4 years since the first trial of this cause, and so far as this Court can recall, there has been little, if any, talk in public concerning the trial from that time to the time when it was announced that a trial date had been fixed.
Id. The trial judge found the publicity was not unfair to the petitioner. App. at 197a. He added that few spectators had attended voir dire, which he took as some indication “particularly in a community as small as ours” that the publicity had not had a great effect. Id.
In fact the publicity had reached all but one of the twelve jurors and two alternates finally empanelled.15 Juror No. 1 said that *965he had read about the case and heard others express their opinions, but had never come to a “true” opinion. App. at 202a-04a, 207a. Juror No. 2 testified that he had recently discussed the case with others and had formed an opinion which was not firm and fixed and could be set aside. App. at 212a-15a, 218a-19a. The next of the jurors to be selected, Juror No. 4,16 had recently moved into Clearfield County and had never heard about the case. App. at 246a-52a. Juror No. 5 said that she “remembered that they had said he was guilty before” and wondered why petitioner was getting a new trial, but had no opinion and would try to forget what she knew. App. at 259a-63a.
Juror No. 6, James F. Hrin, testified that he had an opinion. He was then asked:
Q. Would you be able to change your mind regarding your opinion before becoming a juror in this case? That’s the way I must have you answer the question.
A. If the facts were so' presented I definitely could change my mind.
Q. Would you say you could enter the jury box presuming him to be innocent?
A. It would be rather difficult for me to answer.
Q. Can you enter the jury box with an open mind prepared to find your verdict on the evidence as presented at trial and the law presented by the Judge?
A. That I could do.
******
Q. Did I understand Mr. Hrin you would require some — you would require evidence or something before you could change your opinion you now have?
A. Definitely. If the facts show a difference from what I had originally had been led to believe, I would definitely change my mind.
Q. But until you’re shown those facts, you would not change your mind — is that your position?
A. Well — I have nothing else to go on.
App. at 271a-73a. After repeatedly reiterating that he would need evidence to change his opinion, Juror Hrin said, “I don’t know if that’s the answer you want.” App. at 275a. Finally when asked yet again whether he could set his opinion aside, he replied, “I have to.” App. at 276a. The court denied petitioner’s challenge for cause, app. at 274a-75a, and petitioner did not exercise a peremptory challenge.
Juror No. 7 said that he had formed an opinion but added that he was not sure that he still had an opinion or that he could forget what he knew. App. at 285a-88a, 298a-99a. Juror No. 8 had heard others discussing the case and had had an opinion. App. at 304a-05a. She testified that she had none at present except “what he said himself — that he was guilty.” App. at 309a-10a. She then said that she did not think she would consider in deliberations what she already knew. App. at 312a-13a. Juror No. 9 said that she had thought petitioner was guilty and wondered why a new trial was necessary, but added that now she would have to hear both sides before she could decide. App. at 322a-24a. Juror No. 10 had heard the opinions of others and had expressed his own. He admitted that it would be difficult to strike what he’d heard before, but stated that he felt petitioner should “have every opportunity to prove his innocence.” App. at 336a, 338a-39a. Juror No. 11 testified that he had read about the case but had not formed an opinion. App. at 347a, 349a, 357a.17
After petitioner had exhausted his peremptory challenges, two jurors and two alternates were seated over his challenges for cause. Both Juror No. 12 and replacement *966Juror No. 3 testified that they had heard about the case but had no opinion. App. at 362a-65a, 224a-28a. Alternate No. 1 stated that he had expressed an opinion which remained firm and fixed and which he would not put out of his mind until evidence was presented. App. at 380a-85a. Alternate No. 2 said that she had a definite opinion which she could not dismiss and which only evidence could change. App. at 395a-97a. Both alternates were sequestered with the jury; the jurors were told that they were free to discuss the case with other jurors when sequestered.
The trial lasted for four days. The prosecution presented quite a different case than it had at the first trial. Because of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Yount I, the Commonwealth was unable to put into evidence petitioner’s detailed written confessions. As a result, it chose not to retry petitioner on the rape charge. See 537 F.Supp. at 877.
The change in the defense was even more marked. Petitioner did not take the stand to retell and explain the events revealed in the now-excluded confessions. He did not renew his claim of temporary insanity. Instead petitioner relied solely upon cross-examination and character witnesses.
After he was again sentenced to life imprisonment, petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for a new trial on November 27, 1970. He claimed, inter alia, that the trial court erred in rejecting several of his challenges for cause and in denying his petitions for a change of venue. The trial court rejected those arguments and dismissed the motion on January 15, 1973. It stated that there had been “practically no publicity” during the four years between trial and retrial, and “practically no public interest” shown at the second trial as few had attended on some days. App. at 751a. Voir dire had taken such a long time, it explained, because petitioner “raised so many questions and the court exercised its discretion to assure that there could be no complaint about the final jury empanelled.” Id.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the trial court’s post-conviction findings and affirmed the judgment of sentence on January 24, 1974. Yount II, 455 Pa. at 311-12, 314 A.2d at 247. It ruled that the petitions for a change of venue were directed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and found no abuse of that discretion because “the record fails to disclose undue community prejudice.” Id., 455 Pa. at 312-14, 314 A.2d at 247-48.
B. Proceedings Below
In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner claimed that his conviction was obtained in violation of his right to a fair, impartial, and “indifferent” jury. In particular, he alleged that the trial court erred by refusing his motions for a change of venue.18
After two days of evidentiary hearings, the United States Magistrate recommended that the petition be granted. He noted that the case involved a sensational homicide in a small rural community and that extensive publicity had surrounded both trials. App. at 136a, 141a. He found “a strong community hostility toward the petitioner” as well as “pervasive community knowledge of the facts of the case.” Id. at 141a. He characterized this case as one where
the public has been fully informed of the fact that the charged defendant had confessed to the crime, and that he had been previously tried and convicted of both rape and murder, and where on retrial the confession is suppressed but the public remains very much aware of the circumstances surrounding the case and has *967formed definite opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Id. The magistrate calculated that over 70 percent of the veniremen and several of the jurors had testified that they had a fixed opinion, and stated that “a certain pall is cast upon those in the minority who testified that they had not formed a fixed opinion and could judge the case on its merits.” Id. at 140a-41a. In his view, the empan-elled jury was incapable of deciding the case solely on the evidence before it “but rather at best required the petitioner to prove his innocence or at least overcome strong preconceived notions as to his guilt.” Id. at 141a. The magistrate concluded that petitioner could not have received a fair trial by an impartial jury in Clearfield County.
The district court rejected the recommendation of the magistrate. Although the court recognized the community’s “substantial knowledge” of the case, it decided after an independent review of the record that the publicity had not been vicious or excessive. 537 F.Supp. at 877. It noted that the trial court had granted extensive latitude in the voir dire and stated that the exhaustion of the first panel of veniremen was not remarkable. Id. at 877, 882. The district court in its independent review also determined that all the jurors at some point said they could set aside their opinions. Id. at 877-82. Throughout it emphasized that the factual findings of the state court judge were presumptively correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1976). The district court concluded that petitioner had failed to 'carry his burden of establishing that actual prejudice had rendered a fair trial impossible.
C. Discussion
Petitioner argues on appeal that the exposure of the venire to prejudicial pretrial publicity, and the refusal to grant a ■ change of venue, violated his sixth amendment rights.19 The sixth amendment guarantees to the accused the right to be tried “by an impartial jury.” U.S. Const, amend. VI. Under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, the states are required to effectuate that right by giving “a fair trial to the accused by a panel of impartial, ‘indifferent’ jurors,” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961); accord Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 2036, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975), “capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217, 102 S.Ct. 940, 946, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982); see Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 351, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1516, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966).
To satisfy that constitutional standard the jurors need not be totally ignorant of the facts of a case. Murphy, 421 U.S. at 799-800, 95 S.Ct. at 2035-2036. A juror who has read about the case, even one who has conceived some notion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, may nonetheless serve “if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” Id. at 799, 95 S.Ct. at 2035 (quoting Irvin, 366 U.S. at 723, 81 S.Ct. at 1643); see Martin v. Warden, 653 F.2d 799, 804, 806 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1151, 102 S.Ct. 1019, 71 L.Ed.2d 306 (1982). At the same time, a juror’s assurance that he can enter the jury box without an opinion is not dis-positive if the accused can demonstrate “the actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of the juror as will raise the presumption of partiality.” Murphy, 421 U.S. at 800, 95 S.Ct. at 2036 (quoting Irvin, 366 U.S. at 723, 81 S.Ct. at 1643); see United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 995 (3d Cir.), *968cert, denied, 449 U.S. 899, 101 S.Ct. 267, 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
The petitioner challenging his state court conviction in a habeas corpus proceeding must shoulder a particularly heavy burden. Unlike a defendant seeking review of his federal conviction, the petitioner cannot argue that simply because his jury has read of extra-record facts with a high potential for prejudice, a federal court must presume that the jury was prejudiced. Cf. Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 313, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250 (1959) (per curiam) (federal conviction reversed under supervisory power). A federal court reviewing a state conviction on habeas corpus may presume prejudice only in extraordinary cases where “the influence of the news media, either in the community at large or in the courtroom itself, pervaded the proceedings.” Murphy, 421 U.S. at 798-99, 95 S.Ct. at 2035-2036; see, e.g., Sheppard, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (extremely inflammatory publicity and a courthouse given over to carnival); Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965) (trial in circus atmosphere); Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963) (twenty-minute confession repeatedly broadcast on television). The publicity in this case, though it had a high potential for prejudice, did not utterly corrupt the trial atmosphere in that fashion. See Murphy, 421 U.S. at 798, 95 S.Ct. at 2035; Martin, 653 F.2d at 805. Petitioner must therefore show “that the publicity has been so extreme as to cause actual prejudice to a degree rendering a fair trial impossible.” Martin, 653 F.2d at 805 (emphasis added); See Murphy, 421 U.S. at 797-799, 95 S.Ct. at 2034-2036; Estes, 381 U.S. at 542-44, 85 S.Ct. at 1632-1634; Martin, 653 F.2d at 804-06; United States ex rel. Greene v. New Jersey, 519 F.2d 1356, 1357 (3d Cir. 1975) (per curiam).20
To determine whether actual prejudice has been shown, we must examine the “totality of circumstances” for any indication that petitioner’s trial was not fundamentally fair. Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 303, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2303, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977); see Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 352, 86 S.Ct. at 1517. In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 712, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961), the Supreme Court established the method by which such examinations are conducted. See, eg., Murphy, 421 U.S. at 800-03, 95 S.Ct. at 2036-2038; Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541, 556-57, 82 S.Ct. 955, 963-964, 8 L.Ed.2d 98 (1962); see also Dobbert, 432 U.S. at 302-03, 97 S.Ct. at 2302-2303. First, the Court in Irvin considered the extent and content of the publicity because it was indicative of “the then current community pattern of thought.” Irvin, 366 U.S. at 725-27, 81 S.Ct. at 1644-1645. The Court then reviewed the voir dire. In the opinions expressed by potential jurors and the difficulty encountered in finding veniremen who could at least claim impartiality, the Court discovered evidence of a pattern of prejudice in the community. Id. at 727, 81 S.Ct. at 1645. Finally the Court looked to see whether that pattern of prejudice was reflected, in the testimony of the jurors ultimately seated in the jury box. Id. at 727-28, 81 S.Ct. at 1645-1646. Considering all these factors, the Court then concluded that the jurors’ assurances of impartiality had to be discounted. Id., 366 U.S. at 728, 81 S.Ct. at 1645.
1. The Publicity
The publicity preceding petitioner’s trial was extensive and had great potential for prejudice. As in Irvin, petitioner’s ease was *969a “cause celebre” in a rural community which had been subjected to a barrage of publicity concerning a sensational murder. Irvin, 366 U.S. at 725, 81 S.Ct. at 1644; see Murphy, 421 U.S. at 798, 95 S.Ct. at 2035. That publicity, although accurate, factual in nature, and without editorial comment, see Murphy, 421 U.S. at 800 n. 4, 802, 95 S.Ct. at 2036, n. 4, 2037; Beck, 369 U.S. at 556, 82 S.Ct. at 963; revealed prejudicial information “never heard from the witness stand” in the second trial. See Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 356, 86 S.Ct. at 1519.
First, the publicity disclosed that the jury in the first trial had convicted petitioner of the murder. New revelations could be so damning to an accused. United States v. Williams, 568 F.2d 464, 471 (5th Cir.1978). Possibly even more prejudicial was the disclosure of petitioner’s written confessions and his testimony at the first trial. See Rideau, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663; United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 61 (D.C.Cir.1976) (in banc) (per curiam), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933, 97 S.Ct. 2641, 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977); see also United States ex rel. Doggett v. Yeager, 472 F.2d 229, 231 (3d Cir.1973). The confessions and testimony detailed in a highly unfavorable light petitioner’s actions and thoughts at the time of the homicide. They were sworn revelations of information which petitioner’s properly admitted oral statements simply did not convey. Cf. Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181, 195, 72 S.Ct. 599, 606, 96 L.Ed. 872 (1952) (confession printed in newspaper was introduced into evidence); see also United States v. D’Andrea, 495 F.2d 1170, 1172-73 (3d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 855, 95 S.Ct. 101, 42 L.Ed.2d 88 (1974). Finally, the publicity revealed that petitioner at the first trial had pled temporary insanity and had been convicted of rape. Such highly inflammatory facts carried too great a risk of prejudice to be directly offered as evidence. See Marshall, 360 U.S. at 312-13, 79 S.Ct. at 1172-1173; United States ex rel. Greene v. New Jersey, 519 F.2d 1356 (3d Cir.1975) (per curiam). “The exclusion of such evidence in court is meaningless when the news media makes it available to the public.” Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 360, 86 S.Ct. at 1521; see Murphy, 421 U.S. at 802, 95 S.Ct. at 2037.
The publicity was understandably most extensive and most potentially prejudicial before and during petitioner’s first trial, which was four years before his second trial. The passage of time may work to erase highly unfavorable publicity from the memory of a community. See, e.g., Murphy, 421 U.S. at 802, 95 S.Ct. at 2037; Beck, 369 U.S. at 556, 82 S.Ct. at 963. In this case, however, voir dire revealed that more than 98 percent of the veniremen questioned remembered the case. In part this was due to the repeated community exposure provided by newspaper coverage of the appeal and retrial21 which helped keep fresh the imprint of the case in the minds of the public.22 More important, the publicity attending the homicide and first trial *970had been so extensive and intensive that the case was firmly implanted in the memories of Clearfield County residents.
Petitioner has established that the publicity before his second trial had revealed prejudicial information from his first trial, information which was not officially in evidence against him. The widespread dissemination of such extra-record information, while not rendering the jury presumptively prejudiced, poisoned the “general atmosphere of the community” in which petitioner was retried. See Murphy, 421 U.S. at 802, 95 S.Ct. at 2037. If petitioner can show that that atmosphere caused actual prejudice in the jurors, their assurances of impartiality can be disregarded. Id.
2. The Voir Dire
The difficulty of voir dire may provide crucial evidence that the sentiments of the community were so poisoned against an accused as to impeach the asserted indifference of his jurors. Murphy, 421 U.S. at 803, 95 S.Ct. at 2037. “The length to which the trial court must go in order to select jurors who appear to be impartial” reveals a great deal about those jurors’ assurances of impartiality:
In a community where most veniremen will admit to a disqualifying prejudice, the reliability of the others’ protestations may be drawn into question; for it is then more probable that they are part of a community deeply hostile to the accused, and more likely that they may unwittingly have been influenced by it.
Id. at 802-03, 95 S.Ct. at 2037-2038.
In this case, as in Irvin, “impartial jurors were hard to find.” Irvin, 366 U.S. at 727, 81 S.Ct. at 1645. In the long and difficult voir dire23 163 veniremen were questioned on the case. Our independent examination of the voir dire testimony shows that 126 prospective jurors, or 77 percent of the 163 veniremen questioned, admitted that they would carry an opinion into the jury box. The trial court itself excused on challenges for cause 117 of those veniremen, or 72 percent of the 163, after they stated that they could not set aside their opinion.24 Only when petitioner had exhausted his peremptory challenges could enough jurors be found to fill the jury box. Cf. Dobbert, 432 U.S. at 302, 97 S.Ct. at 2302-03 (peremptory challenges not exhausted); United States v. Gorel, 622 F.2d 100, 103-04 (5th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 943, 100 S.Ct. 1340, 63 L.Ed.2d 777 (1980).
In Irvin the trial court dismissed for cause 268 of 430 veniremen, or 62 percent, because they had fixed opinions concerning the petitioner’s guilt. Almost 90 percent of those examined entertained some opinion as to guilt. 366 U.S. at 727, 81 S.Ct. at 1645. In those circumstances the Supreme Court “readily found actual prejudice against the petitioner to a degree that rendered a fair trial impossible.” Murphy, 421 U.S. at 798, 95 S.Ct. at 2035; accord United States ex rel. Bloeth v. Denno, 313 F.2d 364, 368-69 (2d Cir.1962) (in banc) (31 of 38 veniremen questioned had formed opinion), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 978, 83 S.Ct. 1112,10 L.Ed.2d 143 (1963). By contrast, in Murphy the Court found no basis to cast doubt on the juror’s assurances of impartiality where only 20 of 78 veniremen questioned, or 26 percent, were excused because they disclosed an opinion as to guilt. Id. at 803, 95 S.Ct. at 2037; accord Beck, 369 U.S. at 556, 82 S.Ct. at 963 (14 of 56 veniremen might have had opinions); Martin, 653 F.2d at 806 (23 of 81 veniremen questioned had opinions); Brinlee v. Crisp, 608 F.2d 839, 845 (10th Cir.1979) (19 of 47 veniremen ques*971tioned had opinions), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1047, 100 S.Ct. 737, 62 L.Ed.2d 733 (1980); Haldeman, 559 F.2d at 70 & n. 56 (29-36 percent of veniremen arguably had opinions), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933, 97 S.Ct. 2641, 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977); Mastrian v. McManus, 554 F.2d 813, 818 (8th Cir.) (41 of 92 veniremen questioned had opinions), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 913, 97 S.Ct. 2985, 53 L.Ed.2d 1099 (1977).
In the instant case voir dire revealed other indications of a deep and bitter prejudice present in the community. One venireman apparently veiled his strong feelings when testifying. Another said that her fellow parishioners tried to influence her to vote guilty. Many veniremen volunteered opinions of guilt, and over 90 percent of those asked said they had discussed the case or heard others express their opinions.
We believe that the voir dire in this case more strongly resembles that of Irvin than that of Murphy. See Martin, 653 F.2d at 806. Three-quarters of the veniremen admitted to an opinion of guilt which they could not set aside. “Where so many, so many times, admitted prejudice, [a juror’s] statement of impartiality can be given little weight.” Irvin, 366 U.S. at 728, 81 S.Ct. at 1645; Martin, 653 F.2d at 806.
3. The Jurors Selected
The prejudice permeating the voir dire and the community was reflected in the voir dire testimony of the majority of the twelve jurors and two alternates ultimately placed in the jury box.25 All but one of the jurors were familiar with the case, and several explicitly recalled petitioner’s conviction or confessions. Eight out of fourteen jurors would admit that, before hearing any testimony, they had formed an opinion as to petitioner’s guilt or innocence. Cf. Irvin, 366 U.S. at 727, 81 S.Ct. at 1645 (8 of 12 had formed opinions); Denno, 313 F.2d at 367-68 (8 of 16 had formed opinions).26
With such an opinion permeating their minds, it would be difficult to say that each could exclude this preconception of guilt from his deliberations. The influence that lurks in an opinion once formed is so persistent that it unconsciously fights detachment from the mental processes of the average man.
Irvin, 366 U.S. at 727, 81 S.Ct. at 1645 (citation omitted). Indeed, when asked whether they could set their opinions aside and forget what they had heard, many of the jurors gave uncertain and ambiguous answers. Even such equivocal assurances of impartiality were preferable to the open admissions of prejudice made by Juror Hrin and the two alternates, who went “so far as to say that it would take evidence to overcome their belief.” Id. at 728, 81 S.Ct. at 1645; Murphy, 421 U.S. at 798,27 95 S.Ct. at 2035.
*972It is hardly surprising that the assurances of impartiality given by petitioner’s jurors •were equivocal or negative. It is more surprising that some could indeed give blanket-assurances of impartiality. Petitioner’s jurors were members of a community barraged by publicity .and alive with discussion, a community where three quarters of those called would admit to a disqualifying prejudice. Those jurors were then asked to forget that petitioner had been convicted of the murder, and rape, of Pamela Rimer. They were asked to forget how petitioner twice in writing and once' on the stand had retold in detail that he had killed her, and. how he had offered no defense except for temporary insanity. Those jurors were asked to forget all they knew and put their impressions and opinions aside. Such a request took insufficient account of “the frailties of human nature.” Irvin, 366 U.S. at 728, 81 S.Ct. at 1645.
“Impartiality is not a technical conception. It is a state of mind.” Id. at 724, 81 S.Ct. at 1643 (quoting United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 145, 57 S.Ct. 177, 185, 81 L.Ed. 78 (1936)). We must view the jurors’ assurances of impartiality in light of the pretrial publicity, the difficulty of voir dire, and the testimony of the jurors selected. We conclude that despite their assurances of impartiality, the jurors could not set aside their opinions and render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court. Petitioner has shown that the pretrial publicity caused actual prejudice to a degree rendering a fair trial impossible in Clearfield County. After examining the totality of circumstances, we hold that petitioner’s retrial was not fundamentally fair.
III. CONCLUSION
We will affirm that part of the district court’s order holding that petitioner’s constitutional right against self-incrimination was not violated by the admission into evidence of his oral statements. We will vacate that part of its order holding that retrial in Clearfield County did not infringe petitioner’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
Petitioner’s detention and sentence of life imprisonment are in violation of the Constitution of the United States. He is therefore entitled to be freed from that detention and sentence. Petitioner is still subject to custody under the indictment, however, and he may be retried on this or another indictment. Irvin, 366 U.S. at 728, 81- S.Ct. at 1645.
We will remand the case to the district court with the direction that a writ of habe-as corpus shall issue unless within a reasonable time the Commonwealth shall afford petitioner a new trial.

. The petition was initially filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, but was transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) (1976).

. None of petitioner’s other allegations are before us. Petitioner does not appeal the district court’s rejection of his challenges to the trial court’s instructions on the degrees of homicide and on the murder weapon. See Yount v. Patton, 537 F.Supp. 873, 875 (W.D.Pa.1982); app. at 134a. All other claims by petitioner, including his attack on the use of character evidence at trial, his allegation of a prejudicial charge by the court, and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, were deleted on petitioner’s motion after the district court determined that the claims had not been presented to the courts of Pennsylvania for their initial consideration. See 537 F.Supp. at 874-75; see app. at 126a-27a, 154a.

. The federal magistrate adopted the statement of the facts given in the opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Yount II, 455 Pa. at 306-08, 314 A.2d at 244-45. App. at 128a. We too adopt that statement. In addition we on occasion cite directly to the record for certain details omitted in the supreme court’s summary. Unless otherwise noted, those details are undisputed.

. Petitioner asserts that before he came to the substation, the state policemen there knew that he and his vehicle had been linked to the scene of the crime. Appellant’s Brief at 33. The trial court found, however, that when petitioner appeared at the substation “there was no knowledge on the part of the Police [at the substation] that he ‘was the one they were looking for.’ ” App. at 754a. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that the state policemen who had discovered that petitioner’s automobile fit the neighbors’ description had been working entirely separately and in a different location. Yount II, 455 Pa. at 309-10, 314, 314 A.2d at 246, 248.

. Petitioner argues that the state- police searched him and confiscated his penknife before the detective asked, “Why are we looking for you?” Appellant’s Brief at 32. Although there have been no explicit factual findings as to when the search occurred, petitioner’s assertion has been implicitly rejected in the factual findings and holding of the state trial court and the district court, and is not fairly supported by the record.

. The case also received publicity in radio and television broadcasts, as well as in out-of-state and national publications.

. Petitioner’s second trial and his subsequent efforts to gain retrial or parole also received front-page coverage. Those efforts have provoked substantial community protest in Clear-field County. App. at 137a & n. 16. The magistrate found that even “at this late date, fifteen years after the crime, there is considerable public feeling in Clearfield County in opposition to the petitioner.” App. at 136a-37a.

. Ninety-six veniremen were asked, and 88 responded affirmatively.

. Petitioner made 114 successful challenges, the prosecution seven.

. After objection by respondent, petitioner was not permitted to ask each venireman what his opinion was. See Transcript of Trial — Voir Dire at 86; Brief for Appellee at 13; Brief for Petitioner at 27-28. Many veniremen nonetheless volunteered that they thought petitioner was guilty because he had confessed to the crime or because he had been convicted in the first trial. Other veniremen remembered hearing members of the public express the opinion that petitioner was guilty. No venireman said he thought petitioner was not guilty.

. Petitioner challenged 90 of those 96 veniremen. The prosecution challenged the remaining six.

. Petitioner successfully challenged all 21 veniremen.

. Petitioner peremptorily challenged six of those nine veniremen, one was seated as a juror, and the remaining two were seated as alternates after petitioner had exhausted his peremptory challenges.

. In addition, we note that twelve other veniremen stated that they had had an opinion at one time but claimed they would not carry it into the jury box. One of the twelve veniremen was dismissed for cause, six were peremptorily challenged by petitioner, and five were seated as jurors.

. Juror No. 1 stated that “it was pretty hard to be here in Clearfield County and not read something in the paper.” App. at 202a. Juror No. 2 said that “[y]ou could hardly miss it” on the radio and television news. App. at 212a. Juror No. 6 volunteered that “[ijt’s rather difficult to live in DuBois and get the paper and *965find out what the people are talking about — at least the local people without having some opinion or at least reserving some opinion.” App. at 275a-76a. Several potential jurors gave similar appraisals of the publicity’s effect.

. The venireman initially selected as Juror No. 3 was later excused for personal reasons.

. Petitioner did not challenge Jurors Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-11. At the hearing on the habeas petition, petitioner explained that, because he had believed that a change of venue would not be granted and that a fair and impartial jury was impossible in Clearfield County, he had felt the jurors were “probably about as good as we are going to get.” App. at 557a-58a; see Appellant’s Brief at 16-17.

. Brief for Petitioner at 25-34. Petitioner also assigned error to the denial of the challenges for cause he made to Juror No. 3, Juror No. 12, and four potential jurors. App. at 16a; Brief for Petitioner at 34-39. The district court found no constitutional infirmity. 537 F.Supp. at 882-83. Petitioner does not raise those challenges on appeal.
Petitioner does argue on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his challenges for cause to Juror Hrin and both alternate jurors. Appellant’s Brief at 25. Our disposition of this appeal makes it unnecessary to consider whether those arguments are properly before us.

. Petitioner in his brief separates his challenge based on pretrial publicity from his challenge based on the refusal to change venue. We consider the arguments to be inseparable. • See Martín v. Warden, 653 F.2d 799, 802-06 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1151, 102 S.Ct. 1019, 71 L.Ed.2d 306 (1982). The pretrial publicity and its effects were the basis for petitioner’s motions for a change of venue. Our inquiry in this habeas corpus proceeding is restricted to whether the refusal to change venue amounted to a violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights. Id. at 804; see Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 726, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 1419, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963). There could be no constitutional violation unless petitioner was denied his constitutional right to an impartial jury because of pretrial publicity. Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541, 556, 82 S.Ct. 955, 963, 8 L.Ed.2d 98 (1962).

. In addition, because petitioner is challenging a state conviction on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the factual findings of the state courts are presumed to be correct unless petitioner can establish by convincing evidence that the factual findings were erroneous. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1976); see Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 101 S.Ct. 764, 66 L.Ed.2d 722 (1981). At the same time, we have a duty as a federal appellate court “to make an independent evaluation of the circumstances.” Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 362, 86 S.Ct. at 1522. In particular, because the nature and strength of a venireman’s opinion is a mixed question of law and fact, Irvin, 366 U.S. at 723, 81 S.Ct. at 1643, we must “independently evaluate the voir dire testimony of the impaneled jurors” and the potential jurors. Id.; Martin, 653 F.2d at 807; see Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 341-42, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1714-1715, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980).

. The state trial court, though the record contained at least 17 front-page articles, said that between trial and retrial “there was practically no publicity given to this matter through the news media ... .except to report that a new trial had been granted by the Supreme Court.” App. at 751a. We believe, however, that petitioner has established by convincing evidence that the state court’s characterization of the coverage was erroneous. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1976). The record on this petition indicates that 66 front-page articles were published covering the appeal and second trial. Cf. Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. at 547, 101 S.Ct. at 769 (federal and state court had identical record). We agree with the magistrate who after two days of evidentiary hearings found that the second trial “was surrounded with publicity, but not to the same degree” as the first trial. App. at 136a.

. The trial court stated that “as far as this Court can recall” there was little talk in public concerning the second trial. App. at 196a. Veniremen during voir dire indicated, however, that there had been public discussion of the case, particularly in last weeks before retrial. Such discussion apparently did not reach the attention of the trial court.
The trial court also noted that few spectators had attended trial on some days, particularly during voir dire. Because petitioner alleges prejudice not from a “circus atmosphere” in the courtroom, see Murphy, 421 U.S. at 798, 95 S.Ct. at 2035; Martin, 653 F.2d at 805, but from public knowledge of extra-record facts, occasional low attendance is a factor of limited significance.

. The trial court explained that the voir dire was lengthy because petitioner was permitted to ask so many questions. App. at 194a-95a, 751a. The court did indeed extend great leniency to petitioner in his questioning of the veniremen. Such leniency was commendable. It was also necessary under the circumstances, and does not explain away the difficulty of the voir dire as a real factor in our consideration.

. The trial court stated that the difficulty in selecting a jury was due in part to his leniency in granting challenges for cause. App.at 195a, 751a. In our independent evaluation, each of the 117 veniremen dismissed for cause by the trial court had expressed a disqualifying prejudice which required dismissal. In fact, as we have noted, the trial court refused to dismiss several veniremen who had expressed a disqualifying prejudice, and permitted some of them to sit as jurors.

. The alternate jurors were dismissed and did not participate in the jury’s deliberations. An alternate who did not deliberate does not contaminate a jury unless there is reason to believe that the jury had been exposed to the alternate’s prejudicial information or opinion. See United States v. Vento, 533 F.2d 838, 860-70 (3d Cir.1976). In this case the jurors were told they could discuss the case among themselves when sequestered. For four days the two alternate jurors were seated and sequestered with the regular jurors. Even though there is no evidence that the prejudiced alternates talked to the regular jurors, such a sustained condition of “continuous and intimate association” operates to subvert the requirement that the jury’s verdict be based on evidence developed from the witness stand. See Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472-73, 85 S.Ct. 546, 549-550, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965) (jurors guarded by deputy sheriffs who were witnesses); see also United States ex rel. Owen v. McMann, 435 F.2d 813 (2d Cir.1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 906, 91 S.Ct. 1373, 28 L.Ed.2d 646 (1971).

. As a result of our independent evaluation, we must therefore reject the trial court’s conclusion that “almost all, if not all, [of the first twelve] jurors ... had no prior or present fixed opinions.” App. at 196a.

. Petitioner did not challenge nine jurors. Because Pennsylvania at the time ■ of retrial required that objection be made before the jury retired to deliberate, Pa.R.Crim.P. 1106(d) (1975), petitioner’s failure to challenge a juror for cause waived objection to that particular juror, Provenzano, 620 F.2d at 996 n. 15, unless petitioner can show cause for failing to object and prejudice therefrom. Rogers v. McMullen, 673 F.2d 1185, 1188 (11th Cir.1982); Graham v. Mabry, 645 F.2d 603, 606 (8th Cir.1981); see Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 130, 102 S.Ct. 1558, 1568, 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982); Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d *972594 (1977). Where as here a fair trial was impossible not because of a particular juror but regardless of the particular jurors, challenge of any individual juror for cause is not required. Failure to challenge any of the jurors selected, however, is “strong evidence” that the accused thought the jurors were not biased. Beck, 369 U.S. at 557-58, 82 S.Ct. at 964.