From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Frauenheim

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 25, 2022
No. 20-15578 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022)

Opinion

20-15578

10-25-2022

RYAN JUDSON MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden, Pleasant Valley State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted October 20, 2022 [**] San Francisco, California

Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:19-cv-00155-WBS-EFB for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Before: HAWKINS, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Petitioner Ryan Moore ("Moore") appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He argues that the California state court unreasonably determined that he was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury by a juror's discussion of extraneous matters during deliberations. We affirm.

We review de novo the district court's denial of the habeas petition. Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We review the underlying state court ruling under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") and may not grant habeas relief unless the state court ruling was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of" Supreme Court law that was "clearly established" at the time the state court adjudicated the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

"Courts universally prohibit jurors from impeaching their own verdicts through evidence of their internal deliberative process." Tarango v. McDaniel, 837 F.3d 936, 947 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Estrada v. Scribner, 512 F.3d 1227, 1237 (9th Cir. 2008). However, a trial by jury "necessarily implies at the very least that the 'evidence developed' against a defendant shall come from the witness stand in a public courtroom where there is full judicial protection of the defendant's right of confrontation, of cross-examination, and of counsel." Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472-73 (1965).

Improper consideration of extraneous material applies to matters derived from "external" sources, such as "publicity and information related specifically to the case the jurors are meant to decide." Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 51 (2014) (emphasis added). This is distinguished from the "general body of experiences that jurors are understood to bring with them to the jury room." Id. Here, Juror #10's statements about two other publicized shooting incidents were not outside evidence about the case the jury was deciding, but part of the general knowledge and life experience of the juror.

The Supreme Court has also recognized an exception to the no-impeachment of the deliberative process rule "where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant," in which case the court may consider "the evidence of the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee." Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S.Ct. 855, 869 (2017) (emphasis added). The remarks here do not satisfy the requirements set forth in Pena-Rodriguez to invoke the exception. Juror #10 did not make a "clear statement" he was racially motivated to convict Moore. Id. The juror mentioned two nationally reported shooting incidents, one which involved allegations of racial animus and one which did not; neither was particularly similar to the case being decided. See id. ("Not every offhand comment indicating racial bias or hostility will justify setting aside the no-impeachment bar to allow further judicial inquiry. For the inquiry to proceed, there must be a showing that one or more jurors made statements exhibiting overt racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury's deliberations and resulting verdict." (emphasis added)).

It was not objectively unreasonable for the state court to conclude that the alleged statements did not indicate consideration of improper extraneous material about the case being decided nor were they a clear indicator of racial bias. Thus, the statements were subject to the traditional prohibition on impeachment of the jury's deliberative processes and hence inadmissible.

AFFIRMED.

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).


Summaries of

Moore v. Frauenheim

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 25, 2022
No. 20-15578 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022)
Case details for

Moore v. Frauenheim

Case Details

Full title:RYAN JUDSON MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 25, 2022

Citations

No. 20-15578 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022)