Bryant Williams v. Gary Swarthout

dissenting:

I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the California Court of Appeal found state and federal constitutional error. I would hold that the California Court of Appeal determined that Williams’s state and federal constitutional rights were not violated. I would further hold that this was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

I.

Under California law, a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury can be violated when there is an objective, substantial likelihood of juror bias. See People v. Ramos, 34 Cal.4th 494 , 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 575 , 101 P.3d 478, 497 (2004). The court of appeal’s decision reads as follows:

The court of appeal finally concluded that “[ujnder well-established principles of harmless error concerning trial court instructional misstatements, we hold that the error was cured,” citing three jury instruction misstatement cases where, despite the trial court making a misstatement while instructing the jury, the court of appeal ultimately concluded that the misstatement was harmless and did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See People v. Robinson, 37 Cal.4th 592 , 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 760 , 124 P.3d 363 ,…

FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

At voir dire, on December 7, 2006, the trial judge stated: “the defendant has entered a not guilty plea denying that he is guilty of the[] three charges”—i.e., one count of false imprisonment and two counts of sexual penetration by a foreign object. On December 12, 2006, after the jury had been sworn, the judge stated:

I will now explain the presumption of innocence and the people’s burden of proof. The defendant has pleaded guilty to the charges. The fact that a criminal charge has been filed against the defendant is not evidence that the charge is true. You must not be biased against the defendant just because he has been arrested, charged with a crime, or brought to trial. A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption requires that the people prove each element of a crime and special allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Emphasis added.) Trial began that same day. On December 13, after closing arguments, the jury retired to deliberate.

Less than an hour into deliberation, the jury sent the judge the following note: “As a group we the jury feel we heard the judge state the defendant pleaded guilty before the…

Opinion by Judge NOONAN; Dissent by Judge MURGUIA

OPINION

Petitioner Bryant Keith Williams seeks federal habeas relief on the basis that the state trial court’s misstatement that Williams had pled guilty — a misstatement made immediately before trial commenced and not corrected until the jury began deliberating — violated his due process rights by depriving him of the presumption of innocence, and violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. We agree and reverse the district court’s denial of habeas relief.

FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

At voir dire, on December 7, 2006, the trial judge stated: “the defendant has entered a not guilty plea denying that he is guilty of the[] three charges” — i.e., one count of false imprisonment and two counts of sexual penetration by a foreign object. On December 12, 2006, after the jury had been sworn, the judge stated:

(Emphasis added.) Trial began that same day. On December 13, after closing arguments, the jury retired to deliberate.

Less than an hour into deliberation, the jury sent the judge the following note: “As a group we the jury feel we heard the judge state the defendant pleaded guilty before the trial. Is this…