Court Opinion

ID: 9491378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:12:30.028115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:42.227803
License: Public Domain

*986BRUNETTI, Circuit Judge,
dissenting, with Judges DAVID R. THOMPSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, joining.
Today’s opinion sets forth a new rule of law that is a substantial departure from our precedent and deals a serious blow to the power of the trial court. Oür system of law mandates deference to the trial court on certain issues regarding facts and credibility of witnesses. Today, that deference is pushed aside so' that the appellate court may not only review the applicable laws, but also decide the facts. Our position has never been to sit as a finder of fact and I cannot support the extension of our power to do so. For the reasons that follow, I respectfully dissent.
I. Actual Bias Standard
The Sixth Amendment “guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, ‘indifferent’ jurors.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). The Constitution “does not require a new trial every time a juror has been placed in a potentially compromising situation.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). As the majority points out, due process requires only that the defendant be tried by a “jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever watchful to prevent prejudicial occurrences and to determine the effect of such occurrences when they happen.” Id. For Dyer to be entitled to a new trial, he would have to “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 Equipment v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984).
In reviewing a petition for habeas, we presume the correctness of state court findings of “basic, primary, or historical facts” unless one of the eight statutory exceptions applies. Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 109-10, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). Because resolution depends heavily on the trial court’s appraisal of witness credibility and demeanor, juror impartiality is a factual issue that falls within the statutory presumption of correctness. Id. The majority contends that the trial court was so lax in its investigation of Freeland that its determination that Free-land was impartial is not entitled to the presumption of correctness. I disagree.
The state trial court made findings that Freeland’s answers on voir dire were not dishonest or intentionally misleading. At the in camera hearing, the .trial court had an adequate opportunity to witness Freeland’s demeanor and questioned her about her understanding of the circumstances surrounding her brother’s death and whether she believed it would affect her partiality. The trial court refused to “characterize anything [Freeland] did or did not do as demonstrating any lack of candor.” Also, the trial court found that Freeland’s allegedly false answers to the two voir dire questions at issue were “inadvertent” and were given in “good faith.”
Absent application of a statutory exception, we must give presumptive weight to the finding of Freeland’s impartiality. The majority refuses to apply the presumption because, they believe, (1) material facts were not developed, and (2) clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that the state court’s determination as to Freeland’s honesty was erroneous. I disagree.
The majority concludes that material facts about Richard’s death were not developed adequately at the trial court proceeding. However, the trial court found Freeland honestly believed that her brother’s death was an accident, and therefore was not a crime. This finding is not inconsistent with Freeland and Richard being close, the fact that the family was seriously affected by his death, or even institution of a wrongful death suit and eventual recovery. " Similarly, that Free-land’s mother testified in the criminal proceedings is of no import since it was not shown that Freeland knew about this testimony. Therefore, like the majority of the original Ninth Circuit panel, I would not disrupt the state courts’ determination that Freeland answered honestly based on evidence unknown to the state trial judge that is wholly consistent with such a finding.
*987The majority assumes that Freeland obviously lied by failing to reveal that she was attacked by her cousin, that her father had been arrested for kidnapping, that her uncle had been arrested for murder, that her brother had been arrested on drug charges, that Freeland’s cars and home had been burglarized, and that her former husband had been arrested for rape. However, as to each of these additional facts, Freeland has explained why she originally failed to disclose them. The district court explicitly credited Freeland’s testimony and found that the new evidence did not detract from the state courts’ findings about Freeland’s credibility.
The procedural history of this case illustrates that Freeland’s credibility was thoroughly scrutinized on multiple occasions. First, the state trial court held an in camera hearing between the guilt and penalty phases and concluded that Freeland was not biased. A motion for mistrial was then denied. Second, the state trial court held a hearing on this issue in response to Dyer’s motion for a new trial. The trial court found that the voir dire questions were ambiguous and that Freeland’s responses were, inadvertent. Third, on direct appeal, the California Supreme Court agreed that the questions were ambiguous and found no evidence that Free-land was lying when she said that no member of her family had been a crime victim. Fourth, on federal habeas, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing accepting new evidence and still affirmed the trial court’s finding that Freeland had answered honestly, refusing to presume bias.
Accordingly, we have before us not just the state courts’ findings of impartiality, but also the district court’s findings that are based on the additional facts that Dyer had since proffered and on which the majority now focuses its attention. As the district court found, none of these additional facts provides any reason to disturb the state courts’ finding that Freeland was honest in her responses. See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 449-50, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) (newly discovered evidence failed to demonstrate that facts were not adequately developed in state court). None of the district court’s findings as to Freeland’s credibility were clearly erroneous. Although the number of crimes, committed by members of her family seems highland the number of.incidents in which she or members of her- family were victims of crimes also seems high, these facts do not establish that Freeland was dishonest. Freeland is from a crime-ridden community — a fact which plausibly both affects her understanding of what, qualifies as a crime and influenced her answers to Questions 13 and '15. The trial court and the state supreme court both found the voir dire questions ambiguous and that Freeland’s answers in camera and in deposition were honest. The record as a 'whole,' including Freeland’s deposition testimony and her responses at the in camera hearing, is adequate to support the findings that she was not being dishonest during voir dire. Therefore, the additional ■facts do not destroy the presumption that the state courts’ findings of fact are correct.
The majority rejects the state courts’ factual findings and instead concludes that Freeland’s responses were patently implausi-blfe.' To reach this conclusion they continually recite their assumption that “Freeland lied and lied repeatedly.” Essentially, the majority is re-finding the facts and, through speculation and assumption regarding these newly-found facts, concluding that Freeland’s explanations defy common sense.' That is not our proper function. The trial court saw Free-land testify and simply did not believe that she lied. Our judicial system relies heavily on the trial judge t'o make this very sort of determination. Trial judges, viewing the testimony first hand ahd, using-all their senses, are in the best position to determine credibility. For this reason, appellate'judges properly defer to the trial judge’s factual findings of credibility under our laws.' See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 727 (9th Cir.1986) (stating that “[w]e can think of no sort of factual finding that is more appropriate for deferential treatment than is -a state court’s credibility determination.”). As the majority of the prior three judge panel concluded, “[sjimply put, while there are substantial questions raised as to her credibility, the findings by the state trial court, added to by the findings of the district judge, have not been demonstrated by Dyer to be clearly erroneous — given the special credibility def-*988erenee we are required to apply: she believed what she said was true at that time.” Dyer v. Calderon, 122 F.3d 720, 730 (9th Cir.1997). Actual bias is the issue here; not whether she lied on the juror questionnaire or voir dire. See McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556, 104 S.Ct. 845.
II. Implied Bias
Not only does the majority find actual bias, based on the assumed he, but they also find implied bias based on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has never explicitly held that we may infer or presume bias based on the totality of the circumstances. We should not do so now.
The majority relies on case law where we have said that “bias could be implied or presumed from the ‘potential for substantial emotional involvement; adversely affecting impartiality,’ inherent in certain relationships.” Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 527 (9th Cir.1990) quoting United States v. Allsup, 566 F.2d 68, 71 (9th Cir.1977). However, these cases are inapplicable to today’s case. In those cases the court found that the relationship of a juror to the subject of the trial was too close. In Allsup, we held that two jurors in a bank robbery trial were partial despite the district court’s finding of impartiality because the jurors were employees of a different branch of a.bank that was robbed. Allsup, 566 F.2d at 71. Similarly, in United States v. Eubanks, 591 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1979), a heroin conspiracy trial, we presumed bias where a juror did not disclose that two of his children were in prison for heroin-related crimes. M at 516-17. In this case, there is no such relationship. In order for Freeland to have the necessary relationship to create the emotional involvement she would have had to know and understand the circumstances and facts of her brother’s death to be a brutal murder.- To the contrary, Freeland believed her brother’s death was an accident. Accordingly, she would have no impermissible substantial emotional involvement to Dyer’s case.
The majority contends that this is such an extreme and extraordinary case that we must presume bias. They claim that Freeland must be presumed partial because1 Freeland’s brother was shot several times in the head, just as the victims in this case. It1 is true that on rare occasions, “[cjourts have been willing to presume bias where a juror or his close relatives have been personally involved in a situation involving a similar fact pattern.” Tinsley, 895 F.2d at 528 (citing cases). However, as stated in our discussion of actual bias, we accept the trial court’s finding that Freeland honestly believed that her brother had been killed accidentally. That said, the remaining similarity — death by gunshot — does not render this case extraordinary or extreme.
While at first glance it may appear extraordinary that Freeland has experienced such tragedy and so much crime, considering the alleged rate of crime in Freeland’s neighborhood, her circumstances, though lamentable, are not surprising or extraordinary. Indeed, Freeland has experienced crime not only as a victim but 'also as' the family member of criminals. Thus, it would be pure speculation to say that there was an inherent “potential for substantial emotional involvement, adversely affecting impartiality.” Id. at 527 (internal quotation omitted).
The majority would go further, however. Now, sixteen years after the trial, they would conduct in the appellate court an inquiry similar to a perjury trial to impeach the former juror Freeland when in fact the state trial court conducted a face-to-face hearing at the time that the issue of Freeland’s bias was raised.
Finally the majority’s holding requiring this “perjury inquiry” to sustain an implied bias finding is clearly a new rule barred by Teague, and I join and concur in Judge O’Scannlain’s dissent which ably sets forth the Teague application in this case.
I would affirm the district court’s denial of the writ of habeas corpus.
O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
with whom BRUNETTI, DAVID R.THOMPSON, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that we are not foreclosed by Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 *989L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), from declaring that the entire hierarchy of California courts committed constitutional error by not implying juror bias.1
State court judges are our co-equal partners in the protection of federal constitutional rights.2 Although Congress has granted us the authority to grant habeas corpus relief to state prisoners, due consideration of our circumscribed role in the federal system counsels prudent restraint in exercising that extraordinary power to second-guess state courts. Lest we forget, in Teague, the Supreme Court instructed us not to impose constitutional rules dn our state court brethren that were not compelled by existing precedent when a habeas petitioner finished raising his claims on direct review. As the Court explained in Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333, 113 S.Ct. 2112, 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993), Teague “‘validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts,’ and thus effectuates the States’ interest in the finality of criminal convictions and fosters comity between federal and state courts.” Id. at 340, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (quoting Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 414, 110 S.Ct. 1212, 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)) (internal citation omitted).
Under Teague, the reviewing federal court must inquire whether “ ‘a state court considering [the petitioner’s] claim at the time his conviction became final would have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule [he] seeks was required by the Constitution.’ ” Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 117 S.Ct. 1517, 1524, 137 L.Ed.2d 771 (1997) (quoting Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 488, 110 S.Ct. 1257, 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990)) (emphasis added). That is to say, in order to conclude that application of a rule is not barred by Teague, the federal court must determine not only that the rule was “a reasonable interpretation of prior law,!’ or even the “most reasonable” interpretation, but also that “no other interpretation was reasonable.” Id. 117 S.Ct. at 1530. Because state courts would not have felt compelled by precedent (existing on the date Dyer’s conviction became final) to conclude that the “implied-bias rule” developed by the majority was required by the Constitution, application of that rule is barred by Teague.
I
In Teague, the Supreme Court held, “[s]ubjeet to two narrow exceptions,” Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333, 339, 113 S.Ct. 2112, 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993), that “new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final beforé the new rules are announced.” Teague, 489 U.S. at 310, 109 S.Ct. 1060. The federal court’s inquiry under Teague must be conducted in three steps. First, the federal court must determine the date on which the petitioner’s conviction became final See Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383, 390, 114 S.Ct. 948, 127 L.Ed.2d 236 (1994). Second, it must “[s]urvey the legal landscape as it then existed,” Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 468, 113 S.Ct. 892, 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993), to “determine whether a state court considering [the petitioner’s] claim at the time his conviction became final would have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule [he] seeks was required by the Constitution.” Saffle, 494 U.S. at 488, 110 S.Ct. 1257. Finally, “if the , court determines that, the habeas petitioner seeks the benefit of a new rule, the court must consider whether the relief sought falls within one of the two narrow exceptions to nonretroactivity.” 3 hambrix, 117 S.Ct. at 1524-25.
*990Dyer’s conviction became final on October 31,1988, the date on which the United States Supreme Court declined to review the California Supreme Court’s decision affirming Dyer’s conviction on direct review. See People v. Dyer, 45 Cal.3d 26, 246 Cal.Rptr. 209, 753 P.2d 1, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 934, 109 S.Ct. 330, 102 L.Ed.2d 347 (Oct. 31, 1988).
In surveying the legal landscape as it existed on that date, it is necessary to determine whether “precedent” would have “compelled” a state court to conclude that the Constitution “required” the implied-bias,rule applied by the majority. Saffle, 494 U.S. at 488, 110 S.Ct. 1257. The majority purports to rely on three sources of precedent in support of its conclusion that juror bias may be implied: (1) decisions of the United States Supreme Court; (2) decisions of the lower federal courts; and (3) the common law.
II
Our survey of the decisions of the Supreme Court begins with Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). In Smith, the Court examined whether a habeas petitioner’s right, to an impartial jury had been violated because a juror submitted an application for employment as an investigator in the District' Attorney’s Office diming the petitioner’s trial. See id.' at 212, 102 S.Ct. 940. The petitioner argued that “[gjiven the human propensity for self-justification ... the law must impute bias to jurors in [such a] position.” Id. at 215, 102 S.Ct. 940. The Supreme Court “disagree[d],” explaining that it had “long held that the remedy for allegations of juror partiality is a hearing in which the defendant has an opportunity to prove actual bias.” Id.; see also id. at 215-17, 102 S.Ct. 940 (discussing Chandler v. Florida,-449 U.S. 560, 101 S.Ct. 802, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981), Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954), and Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 70 S.Ct. 519, 94 L.Ed. 734 (1950)).
Justice O’Connor concurred in the Court’s opinion in Smith. Justices Marshall, Brennan, and Stevens dissented. The concurring and dissenting Justices disagreed as to whether the Smith majority had in fact precluded the possibility that an implied-bias rule is required by the Constitution. In her concurring opinion, Justice O’Connor wrote “to express [her] view that the [majority] opinion does not foreclose the use of ‘implied bias’ in appropriate circumstances.” Id. at 221, 102 S.Ct. 940 (O’Connor, J., concurring). However, Justice Marshall, joined by Justices Brennan and Stevens, expressed a different view of the majority opinion: “According to the majority, the Constitution requires only that the defendant be given an opportunity to prove actual bias.” Id. at 228, 102 S.Ct. 940 (Marshall, J., joined by Brennan and Stevens, JJ., dissenting) (emphasis added).
For Teague . purposes, it matters little whether Justice O’Connor or the dissenting Justices in Smith arrived at the correct interpretation of the majority opinion; what does matter, quite simply, is that reasonable jurists ‘could disagree. I posit what should be considered a most unremarkable point: Justices Marshall, Brennan, and Stevens are reasonable jurists. Because they could read a majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court as precluding the possibility of a constitutional implied-bias rule, I cannot conclude, unlike my majority colleagues, that all reasonable jurists would be compelled to locate such a rule in the Constitution.4
*991Would reasonable jurists have been compelled to change their minds between 1982, when Smith was decided, and October 31, 1988, when Dyer’s conviction became final? To answer this question, we first look to the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984). In McDonough, a four-justice plurality stated that, in order to obtain a new trial on account of juror bias, “a party 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.” Id. at 556, 104 S.Ct. 845. In a concurring opinion, Justice Blaekmun, joined by Justices Stevens and O’Connor, observed that the plurality opinion did not “foreclose” the possibility that bias may be implied. Id. at 556, 104 S.Ct. 845 (Blaekmun, J., joined by Stevens and O’Connor, JJ., concurring). In yet another concurring opinion, Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, expressed disagreement with the plurality’s analysis, arguing that courts may consider whether there are “any facts in the ease suggesting that bias should be conclusively presumed.” Id. at 558, 104 S.Ct. 845 (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, J., concurring).
State courts would pot have felt compelled by these concurring opinions to conclude that bias may be implied as a matter of federal law. The McDonough Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s holding that a new trial was required on account of juror bias, see McDonough, 464 U.S. at 549, 104 S.Ct. 845; therefore, the statements in both concurring opinions regarding implied bias were dicta not necessary to the holding. See United States v. Boatwright, 822 F.2d 862, 864 (9th Cir.1987) (Kennedy, J.) (“The requirement [in United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271 (9th Cir.1986) ], that two independent searches be in progress [for the challenged evidence to be admitted] is dictum, as the case admits the challenged evidence.”); Hutchison v. Amateur Elec. Supply, 42 F.3d 1037-, 1047 (7th Cir.1994) (“Any authority for denying prejudgment interest in [Donnelly v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 874 F.2d 402 (7th Cir.1989) ] thus is dicta, since the Donnelly court reversed the district court’s denial of interest.”); United States v. Helmsley, 985 F.2d 1202, 1207 (2d Cir.1993) (“The statement in [Mills v. Scully, 826 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir.1987), regarding potential deprivations of due process] was dictum since Mills reversed the grant of a writ of a habeas corpus.”). Dicta in Supreme Court opinions are not binding, see McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 141, 101 S.Ct. 2224, 68 L.Ed.2d 724 (1981); Ayala v. United States, 550 F.2d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir.1977), and are certainly insufficient to compel state courts to conclude that a rule is required by the Constitution under Teague. See Lambrix, 117 S.Ct, at 1525 (authority that supports point “in dictum” does not “ ‘eontrol[ ]’ or ‘dictate[ ]’ the result” for Teague purposes). . . ,
Between its decision in McDonough and 1988, the Supreme Court did not directly address the issue of implied bias. Thus, the decisions of the Supreme Court could not have “compelled” state courts to' conclude that the Constitution requires the majority’s implied-bias rule.5
Ill
The majority would apparently hold that, irrespective of whether there is a “Supreme Court case announcing” a constitutional rule of criminal procedure, the rule is not barred *992by Teague if it is “so deeply embedded in the fabric of due process that everyone takes it for granted.” Maj. Op. at 984. I am unable to agree. A rule is “new” under Teague unless “a state court considering [the petitioner’s] claim at the time his conviction became final would have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule [the petitioner] seeks was required by the Constitution.” O’Dell, 521 U.S. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 1973- (holding that rule is not “new” only if this standard is met); Lambrix, 117 5.Ct. at 1524 (using same language to describe standard); Caspari, 510 U.S. at 390, 114 S.Ct. 948 (same); Baffle, 494 U.S. at 488, 110 S.Ct. 1257 (same). As the Supreme Court’s repeated formulation of the Teague inquiry has made clear, Teague asks not only (1) whether a rule is required by (or deeply embedded in)6 the Constitution, but also (2) whether existing precedent compelled that conclusion at the time the petitioner’s conviction became final.
By “existing precedent,” the Court could not have meant the Constitution itself. Otherwise, the Teague inquiry would not only be rendered circular (that is, Teague would ask whether “the Constitution compelled the conclusion that the rule the petitioner seeks is required by the Constitution”), but also toothless. Even if a rule was not compelled by Supreme Court decisions, a federal court would always be able to circumvent Teague simply by concluding that the rule had always been “deeply embedded in the fabric” of the Constitution. (Indeed, it is the rare case in which a federal court applies a constitutional rule of criminal procedure that the court does not believe to be “deeply embedded in the fabric” of some constitutional provision, or combination thereof.) If the Supreme Court had intended the result reached by the majority, it would simply have omitted the words “by existing precedent” from the Teague inquiry, and would have stated that a rule is not barred by Teague if state courts would “have felt compelled [ ] to conclude that the rule the petitioner seeks was required by the Constitution.”7 But see Saffle, 494 U.S. at 488, 110 S.Ct. 1257 (Teague asks whether state courts would “have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule [the petitioner] seeks was required by the Constitution.”) (emphasis added).
Even if there were a “deeply-embedded-in-the-fabric” exception to Teague, the Supreme Court’s summary of its juror-bias decisions in Smith v. Phillips makes it clear that it would not apply here. The Smith Court stated, in pertinent part: *993Smith, 455 U.S. at 215, 102 S.Ct. 940 (emphasis added). Significantly, the Smith Court then proceeded to support this view by summarizing the Court’s juror-bias jurisprudence, including its decisions in Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 70 S.Ct. 519, 94 L.Ed. 734 (1950), Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954), and Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 101 S.Ct. 802, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981).8 Even if the majority’s historical sketch of juror-bias cases were somehow more accurate than that provided by the Smith Court (I respectfully submit that it is not), reasonable state judges sitting in 1988 were entitled to rely on the Smith majority’s interpretation of precedent for the proposition that implied bias is not constitutionally required. Such state judges certainly could not have been expected to foresee our own interpretation of that precedent, decreed a decade later in 1998!
*992In argument before this Court, respondent ... contends that a court cannot possibly ascertain the impartiality of a juror by relying solely upon the testimony of the juror in question. Given the human propensity for self-justification, respondent argues, the law must impute bias to jurors in Smith’s position. We disagree.
This court has long held that the remedy for allegations of juror partiality is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity to prove actual bias. For example....
*993The majority’s contention that,“[n]o opinion in the two centuries of the Republic-exeept the dissent in our case-has suggested that a criminal defendant might lawfully be convicted by a jury tainted by implied bias,” Maj. Op. at 985, is beside the point for three reasons. First, even assuming that the Supreme Court had not said that “the Constitution does not require an implied-bias rule,” it certainly does not follow that the Court has said that “the Constitution does require an implied-bias rule”; only the second proposition is important under Teague. Second, while no court has uttered the precise words used by the majority, many reasonable jurists have concluded, in light of existing precedent, that defendants must. demonstrate actual bias to obtain a new trial. See, e.g., Irons v. Lockhart, 741 F.2d 207, 208 (8th Cir.1984) (“In Smith v. Phillips ... the Supreme Court held that a petitioner who seeks habeas corpus relief based on an allegation of juror bias must prove actual bias, either'in a state court or federal court hearing, and that a court cannot impute bias based on the petitioner’s bare allegations.”); Rogers v. McMullen, 673 F.2d 1185, 1189 (11th Cir. 1982) (“The’ Supreme Court [in Smith v. Phillips ] rejected the implied bias argument and held that due process requires only that a defendant have the opportunity at a post-trial hearing to prove actual bias.”); United States v. Whiting, 538 F.2d 220, 223 (8th Cir.1976) (“Where an attack is made upon the integrity of the trial by reason of alleged misconduct on the part of a juror in failing to disclose information pertinent to the issue of prejudice, the defendant’s burden of proof must be sustained not as a matter of speculation, but as a demonstrable reality. No demonstration of intentional or knowing withholding of information by [the juror] is made here.”). Finally, contrary to what the majority suggests, nowhere does this dissent take a position on whether the Constitution actually requires an implied-bias rule; rather, it simply observes that reasonable jurists could conclude that such a rule was not required at the time Dyer’s conviction became final.
Buried beneath the majority’s “fabric of due process” lies one relevant enduring fact. That is, Supreme Court precedent did not compel the conclusion that an implied-bias rule was required by the Constitution at the time Dyer’s conviction became final. Cf. Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 527 (9th Cir.1990) (“The Supreme Court has never explicitly adopted or rejected the doctrine of implied bias.”).
IV
We next examine whether, as of the date Dyer’s conviction became final, the decisions of the lower federal courts would have compelled state courts to conclude that an implied-bias rule was constitutionally required. Because a state cburt could reasonably have concluded — and perhaps should have concluded — that it was not bound by any lower federal court’s interpretation of the United States Constitution on any matter, it follows a fortiori that lower federal court decisions would not have bound that state court with *994respect to the specific question of implied bias.
As of 1988,9 at least three federal courts of appeals had concluded that, with, respect to the interpretation of federal law, state courts are bound only by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and not by the decisions of the lower federal courts.10 See Bromley v. Crisp, 561 F.2d 1351, 1354 (10th Cir.1977) (“[T]he Oklahoma Courts may express their differing views on the retroactivity problem or similar federal questions until we are all guided by a binding decision of the Supreme Court.”); United States ex rel. Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1074 (1970) (“The federal Circuit Courts of Appeals and, in respect to federal law, the state courts of last resort, are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction' of the Supreme Court of the United States. They are, however, as to the laws of the United States, co-ordinate courts.”) (quoting Iowa Nat’l Bank v. Stewart, 214 Iowa 1229, 232 N.W. 445, 454 (1930)); Owsley v. Peyton, 352 F.2d 804, 805 (4th Cir.1965) (“Though state courts may for policy reasons follow the decisions of the Court of Appeals whose circuit includes their state, they are not obliged to do so.”) (internal citation omitted). Although the Supreme Court had, as of 1988, neither adopted nor rejected this position, several individual Justices had expressed a similar view. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482 n. 3, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., joined by Burger, C.J., concurring); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 125, 91 S.Ct. 674, 27 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971) (Brennan, J., joined by White and Marshall, JJ., dissenting).
Further, a substantial majority of the state courts that had addressed this issue, including California’s, had concluded that they were not bound by the decisions of the lower federal courts on federal questions. Compare, e.g., Cowan v. Myers, 187 Cal.App.3d 968, 985, 232 Cal.Rptr. 299 (1986) (“[T]he decisions of the lower federal courts, even on federal questions, are not binding on this court.”); State v. Webster, 114 Wis.2d 418, 426 n. 4, 338 N.W.2d 474 (1983); State v. Glover, 60 Ohio App.2d 283, 287, 396 N.E.2d 1064 (1978); Greene v. State, 11 Md.App. 106, 110, 273 A.2d 830 (1971), with Handy v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 230 Ala. 211, 160 So. 530 (1935); Kuchenmeister v. Los Angeles & S.L.R., 52 Utah 116, 172 P. 725 (1918). In light of this line of authority, a state court could reasonably have concluded that it was not bound by the decisions of any lower federal court on any federal constitutional issue. Accordingly, such lower federal court decisions could not “compel” state courts within the meaning of Teague. Compare Clemmons v. Delo, 124 F.3d 944, 955 n. 11 (8th Cir.1997) (assuming without deciding that “when the [Supreme] Court says ‘firmly dictated by precedent,’ it means Supreme Court precedent”); Glock v. Singletary, 65 F.3d 878, 885 (11th Cir.1995) (en banc) (courts of appeals do not “dictate” particular rule to state courts for Teague purposes), with Jiminez v. Myers, 40 F.3d 976, 979-81 (9th Cir.1994) (using Ninth Circuit decisions *995to support conclusion that “totality of the circumstances” rule was not “new” under Teague). For this reason, the majority errs in relying upon United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 49, 50 (D.Va.1807), a federal district court opinion, for the proposition that Teague is inapplicable.
Indeed, even assuming that all reasonable state court judges would have concluded, contrary to the weight of the authority, that they were bound to follow lower federal court precedent, Teague would still dictate that such judges were not compelled to recognize an implied-bias rule. At the time Dyer’s conviction became final, the federal courts of appeals were split on the issue of implied bias. Compare United States v. Eubanks, 591 F.2d 513, 517 (9th Cir.1979) (holding that bias could be implied as a matter of law), with United States v. Malloy, 758 F.2d 979, 982 n. 6 (4th Cir.1985) (rejecting implied-bias theory and collecting cases in which .other lower federal courts had done so); see also Debtor Reorganizers, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 58 Cal.App.3d 691, 696, 130 Cal.Rptr. 64 (1976) (“As between the decisions of the Ninth Circuit and [those] of the Fifth Circuit [on federal law], no primacy inheres in the former, so the persuasiveness of the conflicting views must depend upon the validity of the arguments made therein.”). A state court judge sitting in 1988 could reasonably have followed those lower federal courts that had held that a defendant must establish actual bias to obtain a new trial; perforce, state court judges were not compelled to adopt the implied-bias rule. See Lambrix, 117 S.Ct. at 1530 (“[Teague asks] whether no other interpretation [of existing precedent] was reasonable.”).
V
As of the time Dyer’s conviction became final, the conclusion that an implied-bias rule was required by the Constitution was not compelled by either: (1) the decisions of the Supreme Court; or (2) the decisions of the lower federal courts.
Today the court holds'that there is a third source of compelling authority: Sir Edward Coke’s dictum in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 646, 652 (C.P.1610).11 See Maj. Op. at 8601. Not likely! Our own Supreme Court has stated, that .“authority that supports the point in,dictum” does not “‘eon-trol[ ]’ or ‘dietate[ ]’ the result” under Teag-ue. . See Lambrix, 117 S.Ct. at 1525. The Court could hardly have intended an exception to this Teague-based rule,.which.apphes even to the Court’s own opinions, for the dictum of a seventeenth-century English common-law judge..
I respectfully dissent.

. For the reasons expressed in Judge Brunetti’s dissent, I would also accord the presumption of correctness to the factual findings made by the state trial court, and conclude that Juror Free-land was not shown to be actually biased. I would, therefore, affirm Judge Walker's denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

. See Robb v. Connolly, 111 U.S. 624, 637, 4 S.Ct. 544, 28 L.Ed. 542 (1884) ("Upon the state courts, equally with the courts of the Union, rests the obligation to guard, enforce, and protect ev- . ery right granted or secured by the constitution of the United States

.The first "limited” exception to Teague applies to new rules " ‘forbidding criminal punishment of certain primary conduót [and] rules prohibiting a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense.’” O’Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151, -, 117 S.Ct. 1969, 1973, 138 L.Ed.2d 351 (1997) (quoting Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 330, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989)). *990The second, "even more circumscribed," exception applies to " 'watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.' ” Id. (quoting Graham, 506 U.S. at 478, 113 S.Ct. 892). As the Supreme Court observed in Graham, "[w]hatever the precise scope of this [second] exception; it is clearly meant to apply only to a small core of rules requiring observance of those procedures that ... are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Graham, 506 U.S. at 478, 113 S.Ct. 892. The majority does not suggest that either of these exceptions applies here.

. I strongly disagree with the majority's contention that "Smith has no bearing on our case unless we assume the majority tacitly did what Justice Marshall accused it of doing.” Maj. Op. at 985. Rather, Smith "has no bearing on our case” only if Justice Marshall's position was unreasonable. That it was not unreasonable is demonstrated by the fact that many other reasonable jurists have since joined Justice Marshall in reading Smith to hold that the Constitution re*991quires only that defendants be given an opportunity to prove actual bias. See, e.g., United States v. Malloy, 758 F.2d 979, 981-82 (4th Cir.1985); Irons v. Lockhart, 741 F.2d 207, 208 (8th Cir.1984); Rogers v. McMullen, 673 F.2d 1185, 1189 (11th Cir.1982).

. This conclusion is not affected by the Supreme Court's statement in Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992), that the application of a rule is not barred by Teague when it emerges not "from any single case ... but from [a] long line of [Supreme Court] authority....” Id. at 232, 112 S.Ct. 1130. No such "long line” of Supreme Court authority compelled jurists to recognize the majority's implied-bias rule at the time Dyer’s conviction became final. Id. If such a "long line” ever existed (it did not exist, see Smith, 455 U.S. at 215-17, 102 S.Ct. 940 (collecting cases)), it certainly was severed by Smith. See Saffle, 494 U.S. at 488, 110 S.Ct. 1257 (Teague asks whether state court would have felt compelled by “existing precedent-.”) (emphasis added).

. It is unclear whether the majority would create a separate Teague inquiry for rules that are "deeply embedded in" the Constitution, as opposed to those that are merely "required by” the Constitution. Such a distinction is entirely without support in the Supreme Court’s Teague jurisprudence.

. The majority's argument that no reasonable jurist would fail to impute bias automatically to the majority's parade of horrible jurors (the mother of one of the victims, Dyer's ex-wife, the District Attorney, etc.), see Maj. Op. at 985, is flawed for two reasons. First, irrespective of whether they had all "sworn to be fair," id., these hypothetical jurors (unlike Juror Freeland) clearly would not have survived application of California's own juror bias laws. See Weathers v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 5 Cal.3d 98, 110 & n. 5, 95 Cal.Rptr. 516, 485 P.2d 1132 (1971) (intentional concealment on voir dire constitutes grounds for new trial). Lest we forget, we sit as a federal court in habeas review of the California courts, which found no bias (as a matter of either state or federal law) in this case.
Even in the unlikely event that, as the majority suggests, the federal Constitution itself requires courts to impute bias to jurors (in the absence of a showing of intentional concealment), we arc nonetheless barred by Teague from applying an implied-bias rule unless existing precedent compelled that rule at the time Dyer's conviction became final. The majority simply fails to point to any such compelling precedent.

. As its discussion of these juror-bias cases demonstrates, the Smith Court's statement that it had ‘long held that the remedy for allegations of juror partiality is'[an actual bias hearing],” id. at 215, 102 S.Ct. 940, was not limited to any particular factual situation.

. We must determine whether a state court would have felt bound by lower federal court decisions based upon a reasonable interpretation of existing precedent at the time Dyer's conviction became final. To hold a decade after the fact that state courts were bound by precedent that reasonable jurists would not have viewed as binding would be to turn Teague on its head. As the Supreme Court stated in O'Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151, 117 S.Ct. 1969, 138 L.Ed.2d 351 (1997), "[a]t bottom, ... the Teague doctrine 'validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts even though they are shown to be contrary to later decisions.'" Id. at 1973 (quoting Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 414, 110 S.Ct. 1212, 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)). It follows that Teague "validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents” concerning the binding effect of "existing precedents.” Butler, 494 U.S. at 414, 110 S.Ct. 1212.

. In Yniguez v. Arizona, 939 F.2d 727 (9th Cir.1991), decided three years after Dyer's conviction became final, we stated in dicta that "[d]e-spite the authorities that take the view that the state courts are free to ignore decisions of the lower federal courts on federal questions, we have serious doubts as to the wisdom of this view.” Id. at 736. However, in vacating our later decision in that case, the Supreme Court characterized our discussion of the binding effect of lower federal court decisions on state courts as "remarkable.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 1064 n. 11, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (citing Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring) (Supremacy Clause does not require slate courts to follow rulings of federal courts of appeals on questions of federal law)).

. The majority opinion states:
In the common law, implied bias can be traced all the way back to Sir Edward Coke’s dictum in Bonham's Case that no man shall be judge in his own cause. See Dr. Bonham's Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 646, 652 (C.P.1610). This pedigree neatly disposes of the state’s argument that implied bias would be a "new rule" barred by Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). Implied bias may indeed be the single oldest rule in the histoty of judicial review, as Bonham’s Case is often identified as the first case in which a court struck down a duly enacted legislative act. See, e.g., Suzanna Sherry, The Founders’ Unwritten Constitution, 54 U. Chi. L.Rev. 1127, 1130 (1987).
Maj. Op. at 984. No matter how "old[ ]” such a ."rule," id., state courts could not have been compelled by precedent to conclude that it was required by the Constitution. See Lambrix, 117 S.Ct. at 1524. The list of "old rules” whose application by state courts is not compelled by precedent (holding that such rules are constitutionally required) may be limitless, e.g.: The Ten Commandments, see. Exodus 20:7-17; "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye,” Hammurabi’s Code § 196 (c. 1700 B.C.); and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” Matthew 7:12.