Cavazos

ORDER

In accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion of February 20, 2013 as well as the resulting judgment, and taking note of the denial of a petition for rehearing on April 15, 2013, the district court’s denial of Williams’s habeas petition is

AFFIRMED.

concurring:

I agree that we are likely required to deny Tara Williams’s habeas petition. I write to provide the parties, to the extent possible, an explanation of why we hold that our authority to address this question has been foreclosed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s opinion, on its face, creates substantial uncertainty as to this court’s duty on receiving the mandate on remand, and specifically whether it remains open for us to decide Williams’s petition under the restrictive AEDPA standard of review — in short, to answer the question whether her conviction violated the Constitution. At the end of the introduction to the Supreme Court’s opinion, it states that Williams’s federal constitutional claim had been adjudicated on the merits in the state court, and therefore that the restrictive AEDPA standard of review applies to her habeas petition. It goes further, however, and states without explanation “that under that standard respondent is not entitled to habeas relief.” Johnson v. Williams, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1088, 1091-92 , 185 L.Ed.2d 105 (2013).

The last sentence of the introduction is the only mention in the entire opinion of whether or not Williams is…

concurring:

Like Judge Reinhardt, I’m troubled by the Supreme Court’s treatment of Williams’s Sixth Amendment claim. Our confidence in the correctness of a guilty verdict in a criminal case rests in large part on the fact that 12 individuals, fairly chosen, unanimously agree that the defendant is guilty. In Williams’s case, there was a significant departure from this objective process. As documented by the trial transcript, the Superior Court appears to have removed a juror because he was holding out for acquittal.

As several Justices noted at oral argument in the Supreme Court, such conduct by a trial judge is troubling. It cuts at the heart of our adversary system and casts doubt on the resulting verdict. If the trial judge may, during the course of deliberations, delve into the thought process of the jurors and remove those he disagrees with, our confidence in a unanimous verdict is necessarily diminished.

It’s not clear to me that the trial judge’s actions here complied with clearly established Supreme Court precedent, but I’m not sure, as we’ve never ruled on the issue. It’s thus surprising that the Supreme Court should have done so, particularly when it declined to have…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TARA SHENEVA WILLIAMS, No. 07-56127 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. CV-03-02691- GW DEBORAH K. JOHNSON , Acting Warden of the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, ORDER California, Respondent-Appellee.

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed July 3, 2013

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, and Ronald M. Whyte, Senior District Judge.*

Order Concurrence by Judge Reinhardt; Concurrence by Chief Judge Kozinski

* The Honorable Ronald M. W hyte, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 2 WILLIAMS V . JOHNSON

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

In accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion of February 20, 2013 as well as the resulting judgment, and taking note of the denial of a petition for rehearing on April 15, 2013, the district court’s denial of Williams’s habeas petition is

AFFIRMED.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I agree that we are likely required to deny Tara Williams’s habeas petition. I write to provide…