Court Opinion

ID: 9409399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-18 00:00:35.900942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:50.177050
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30240         Document: 00516822969             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/17/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                                                                             FILED
                                                                                         July 17, 2023
                                        No. 22-30240                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                             Clerk

   Justin Granier,

                                                                   Petitioner—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Tim Hooper, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,

                                                                   Respondent—Appellee.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Middle District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 3:18-CV-901

   Before Clement, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. Because no member of
   the panel or judge in regular active service requested that the court be polled
   on rehearing en banc (Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. 35), the petition
   for rehearing en banc is DENIED. The opinion is WITHDRAWN, and the
   following opinion is SUBSTITUTED:

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30240      Document: 00516822969          Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/17/2023

                                    No. 22-30240

          Justin Granier petitions for habeas relief from his state conviction of
   second-degree murder. But he cannot meet the strictures of the Anti-
   Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
                                          I.
          A Louisiana grand jury charged Granier with murdering Luke Villar,
   a DeLaune’s Supermarket employee, while Villar was cleaning the store
   parking lot. Granier pleaded not guilty. At trial, both sides agreed to empanel
   Juror Gladys Mobley (“Juror Mobley”) without objection. The Louisiana
   jury found Granier guilty of second-degree murder. Granier was sentenced
   to life imprisonment, without probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.
          Granier appealed. The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed. The
   Louisiana Supreme Court denied review. Granier did not petition for
   certiorari.
          After his conviction became final, Granier filed an application for
   post-conviction relief in Louisiana state court. The trial court denied all
   claims. The Louisiana Court of Appeal and Louisiana Supreme Court denied
   his writ applications.
          Granier filed a second petition for post-conviction relief in state court,
   raising his claim of juror bias for the first time. Specifically, he argued that
   Juror Mobley knew and failed to disclose during voir dire that her son, Sam
   Mobley, was interviewed as part of the murder investigation.
          The trial court ordered an evidentiary hearing. Upon learning that
   Juror Mobley died before the hearing, Granier filed a motion to submit an
   investigator’s hearsay affidavit. The trial court admitted the hearsay
   evidence. The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed, and the Louisiana
   Supreme Court denied Granier’s writ application.

                                          2
Case: 22-30240     Document: 00516822969          Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/17/2023

                                   No. 22-30240

          On remand, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Sam
   Mobley and Granier’s trial counsel, Wade Petite, testified. Upon Granier’s
   motion, the trial court ordered the State to disclose any information related
   to the search of Sam Mobley’s residence. The State produced Sam Mobley’s
   application for employment at DeLaune’s Supermarket as well as detective
   notes documenting Sam Mobley’s interview, Juror Mobley’s relationship to
   Sam, and Juror Mobley’s address.
          Granier then filed a supplemental memorandum, adding a Fifth
   Amendment prosecutorial misconduct claim for failure to disclose Juror
   Mobley’s connection to the case. The State filed multiple motions to dismiss.
   The trial court rejected all the State’s motions. The Louisiana Supreme
   Court reversed. It stated:
          Defendant’s complaint regarding the seating of the now-
          deceased juror fails to allege a claim which, if established,
          would entitle him to relief. La.C.Cr.P. art 928. See also Burton
          v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150, 1156 (10th Cir. 1991) (“A party who
          seeks a new trial because of non-disclosure by a juror during
          voir dire must show actual bias, either by express admission or
          proof of specific facts showing a close connection to the
          circumstances at hand that bias must be presumed.”). In
          addition, defendant has failed to show the state withheld
          material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v.
          Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
   ROA.4176.
          Subsequently, Granier filed a petition for federal habeas review under
   the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C.
   § 2254. The magistrate judge concluded that, absent factual findings on
   whether Granier could prove his allegations, the Louisiana Supreme Court’s
   decision was “contrary to clearly established federal law.” ROA.1010. The
   magistrate judge therefore ordered a federal evidentiary hearing. After the

                                         3
Case: 22-30240       Document: 00516822969           Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/17/2023

                                      No. 22-30240

   hearing, however, the magistrate judge agreed with the State and
   recommended the court deny the claims on the merits. The district court
   agreed but granted Granier a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on his
   juror bias and prosecutorial misconduct claims.
                                           II.
          Our review is highly deferential to the state court’s decision.
   AEDPA’s relitigation bar applies to both of Granier’s claims because the
   state courts adjudicated them on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under
   the relitigation bar, we are authorized to grant habeas relief only if there “is
   no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision
   conflicts with [the United States Supreme] Court’s precedents.” Harrington
   v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011). We can only review the state court record
   in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); Shoop v. Twyford, 142 S. Ct. 2037,
   2043 (2022); Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011). These standards
   doom Granier’s claims for both (A) juror bias and (B) prosecutorial
   misconduct.
                                           A.
          We first address Granier’s juror bias claim. The Sixth Amendment
   guarantees the right to an impartial jury. See U.S. Const. amend. VI;
   Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 377 (2010). “On federal habeas review,
   state court findings concerning a juror’s impartiality are factual
   determinations entitled to a presumption of correctness.” Buckner v. Davis,
   945 F.3d 906, 910 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1036
   (1984) (finding that a question of juror bias “is plainly one of historical fact”);
   Skilling, 561 U.S. at 386 (emphasizing, on direct review of a federal
   conviction and hence without the added strictures of AEDPA, that reviewing
   courts must resist “second-guessing the trial judge’s estimation of a juror’s
   impartiality”).

                                           4
Case: 22-30240      Document: 00516822969           Page: 5    Date Filed: 07/17/2023

                                     No. 22-30240

          To bring a claim of bias, Granier “must first demonstrate that a juror
   failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further
   show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge
   for cause.” McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556
   (1984). Granier must first point to a clear voir dire question that Juror Mobley
   failed to answer truthfully. See Hatten v. Quarterman, 570 F.3d 595, 602 (5th
   Cir. 2009). Then Granier must show that Juror Mobley lied. See id.
   Specifically, Granier must show that—on the record before the state court—
   Juror Mobley knew about her son’s connection to the case and lied, not
   merely that she provided an inaccurate or incomplete answer. See id.
   Allegations based on “subjective,” “vague and ambiguous” questions are
   insufficient. Id. Then of course, even assuming he could show that Juror
   Mobley was unconstitutionally biased, Granier would also have to show that
   the Louisiana state court’s contrary determination was not only wrong but
   was so wrong that it contravened AEDPA’s relitigation bar. See 28 U.S.C.
   § 2254(d).
          Granier cannot come close to meeting these standards. He does not
   identify any voir dire question that Juror Mobley failed to answer honestly.
   Nor can he state a claim—much less overcome the relitigation bar—by
   arguing that Juror Mobley failed to disclose her knowledge. The record
   before the state court—which is all that matters for the relitigation bar, see 28
   U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)—contained only Sam Mobley’s testimony, Wade
   Petite’s testimony, and the police notes. Taken together, they don’t prove
   that Juror Mobley failed to disclose anything.
          Granier also argues that we should imply Juror Mobley’s bias. This
   implied-bias claim faces two insurmountable hurdles. First, Granier
   concedes that he cannot meet the McDonough Power Equipment framework.
   And second, it’s impossible for Granier to show that the state court
   contravened “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

                                          5
Case: 22-30240      Document: 00516822969          Page: 6    Date Filed: 07/17/2023

                                    No. 22-30240

   Court of the United States” if he cannot point to a relevant holding from the
   Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Terry Williams v. Taylor, 529
   U.S. 362, 412 (2000) (holding that “clearly established Federal law” in
   § 2254(d)(1) “refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s
   decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision” (emphasis
   added)); Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 74 (2006) (same). But Granier can
   point to no such holding. The best he can muster is Justice O’Connor’s
   concurrence in Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982), and Justice Brennan’s
   concurrence in McDonough Power Equipment. But concurrences do not create
   clearly established law. See Terry Williams, 529 U.S. at 412. Accordingly, we
   cannot rely on these authorities, and Granier’s bias claims fail.
                                         B.
          Granier also brings a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, alleging that
   the State violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process when it withheld
   information about Juror Mobley and failed to correct her during voir dire.
   The success of this claim depends on his juror bias claim. Because his juror
   bias claim fails, his prosecutorial misconduct one does too.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          6