PDF: Ruling On New Trial For Donald Fell

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
FOR THE
DI STRI CT OF VERMONT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA :
:
v. : Case No. 2: 01- cr - 12
:
DONALD FELL :
OPINION AND ORDER
Donal d Fel l moves t he Cour t pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 2255 t o
vacat e, set asi de, or cor r ect t he j udgment and sent ence of deat h
i mposed upon hi m, and t o gr ant hi ma new t r i al . Fel l s mot i on
i ncl udes al l egat i ons of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel ,
pr osecut or i al mi sconduct , and j ur or mi sconduct . The sol e i ssue
cur r ent l y bef or e t he Cour t i s Fel l s cl ai mt hat j ur or mi sconduct
depr i ved hi mof hi s Fi f t h, Si xt h, and Ei ght h Amendment r i ght s t o
an i mpar t i al j ur y.
Fel l br i ngs j ur or mi sconduct cl ai ms r egar di ng t hr ee j ur or s.
Accor di ng t o hi s mot i on, one j ur or l i ed dur i ng t he j ur y sel ect i on
pr ocess and wi t hhel d subst ant i al i nf or mat i on about her own l i f e
and t hat of her son. A second j ur or def i ed t he Cour t s
i nst r uct i ons and t r avel ed over t wo hour s i n t he mi dst of t r i al t o
vi ew t he cr i me scenes. I n doi ng so, t he j ur or obt ai ned
i nf or mat i on t hat was not consi st ent wi t h t he t r i al evi dence and,
Fel l ar gues, hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al . Thi s same j ur or i s al so accused
of coer ci ng anot her j ur or s vot e. A t hi r d j ur or al l egedl y f ai l ed
t o di scl ose bot h ext r a- r ecor d knowl edge and mat er i al i nf or mat i on
about hi s past .
Case 2:01-cr-00012-wks Document 514 Filed 07/24/14 Page 1 of 93
The Cour t has now hear d f our days of t est i mony on t he j ur or
mi sconduct i ssue. For t he r easons set f or t h bel ow, t he Cour t
f i nds t hat Fel l has shown j ur or mi sconduct and t hat t hi s
mi sconduct vi ol at ed hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght t o an i mpar t i al
j ur y. Fel l i s t her ef or e ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al , and hi s mot i on
t o vacat e i s GRANTED.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
A. The Offense, Indictment, and Plea Negotiations
On t he ni ght of November 26, 2000, Donal d Fel l and co-
Def endant Rober t Lee mur der ed Fel l s mot her Debr a and her f r i end
Char l es Conway at Debr a Fel l s home i n Rut l and, Ver mont . As
char ged i n t he super sedi ng i ndi ct ment , Fel l and Lee depar t ed t he
r esi dence bef or e dawn, ar med wi t h a 12- gauge shot gun and i n
sear ch of a vehi cl e. The t wo men pr oceeded on f oot t o t he Pr i ce
Chopper super mar ket i n downt own Rut l and, abduct ed super mar ket
empl oyee Ter esca Ki ng, and commandeer ed her vehi cl e. Fel l and
Lee t hen dr ove t o Dut chess Count y, New Yor k, and br ut al l y
mur der ed Mr s. Ki ng. ECF No. 57 at 1- 2.
On November 30, 2000, Fel l and Lee wer e ar r est ed i n
Cl ar ksvi l l e, Ar kansas, dr i vi ng Mr s. Ki ng s car . Upon t hei r
t r ansf er t o t he Di st r i ct of Ver mont , t hey wer e char ged wi t h
i nt er st at e ki dnappi ng and car - j acki ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.
1201( a) and 2119. On Febr uar y 1, 2001, a f eder al gr and j ur y
r et ur ned a f our - count i ndi ct ment char gi ng Fel l and Lee wi t h car -
2
j acki ng r esul t i ng i n deat h i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 2119( 3)
( Count 1) ; ki dnappi ng r esul t i ng i n deat h i n vi ol at i on of 18
U. S. C. 1201( a) ( Count 2) ; br andi shi ng a f i r ear mi n f ur t her ance
of cr i mes of vi ol ence i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.
924( c) ( 1) ( A) ( i i ) ( Count 3) ; and bei ng f ugi t i ves who t r anspor t ed a
f i r ear mi n i nt er st at e commer ce i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.
922( g) ( 2) ( Count 4) . Count s 1 and 2 wer e capi t al of f enses. Fel l
and Lee wer e ar r ai gned on Febr uar y 7, 2001.
1
On Oct ober 24, 2001, Fel l si gned an agr eement t o pl ead
gui l t y i n exchange f or l i f e i mpr i sonment wi t hout r el ease.
However , at t he t i me Fel l and t he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney f or t he
Di st r i ct of Ver mont r eached t hei r agr eement , t he Uni t ed St at es
Depar t ment of J ust i ce r equi r ed al l l ocal deci si ons not t o seek
t he deat h penal t y i n deat h- el i gi bl e cases t o be conf i r med by t he
At t or ney Gener al . I n J anuar y 2002, t he At t or ney Gener al r ej ect ed
t he pl ea agr eement .
On J anuar y 30, 2002, t he gover nment f i l ed a Not i ce of I nt ent
t o Seek Deat h Penal t y. The Not i ce l i st ed f our t hr eshol d
cul pabi l i t y f act or s as set f or t h i n 18 U. S. C. 3591( a) ( 2) ( A) -
( D) , and t hr ee st at ut or y aggr avat i ng f act or s i dent i f i ed i n 18
1
Rober t Lee di ed i n a Ver mont cor r ect i onal f aci l i t y i n
Sept ember 2001.
3
U. S. C. 3592( c) .
2
I t al so l i st ed f our non- st at ut or y aggr avat i ng
f act or s.
3
Af t er t he gover nment f i l ed i t s Not i ce of I nt ent , t he
par t i es negot i at ed an agr eement f or t he penal t y phase t o be t r i ed
t o t he Cour t f ol l owi ng a gui l t y pl ea t o t he char ges. That
agr eement was al so r ej ect ed by t he At t or ney Gener al .
B. Jury Selection
J ur y sel ect i on began on May 4, 2005. Pot ent i al j ur or s
i ni t i al l y compl et ed a t wo- page backgr ound quest i onnai r e ( t he
shor t quest i onnai r e) . The j ur or s wer e t hen summoned t o Cour t ,
wher e t hey wer e gi ven pr el i mi nar y i nst r uct i ons and di r ect ed t o
compl et e a l onger , 34- page quest i onnai r e ( t he l ong
quest i onnai r e) . The l ong quest i onnai r e consi st ed of 75
quest i ons di vi ded i nt o si x par t s: ( 1) backgr ound; ( 2) exper i ences
and bel i ef s; ( 3) i mpor t ant l egal pr i nci pl es; ( 4) vi ews about t he
deat h penal t y; ( 5) exposur e t o medi a about t he case or t he deat h
penal t y; and ( 6) per sonal schedul e dur i ng t he ant i ci pat ed t r i al
per i od.
I n t he pr el i mi nar y i nst r uct i ons, t he Cour t expl ai ned t o t he
pr ospect i ve j ur or s:
2
The t hr ee st at ut or y aggr avat i ng f act or s al l eged t hat ( 1)
Ki ng s deat h occur r ed dur i ng t he commi ssi on of a ki dnappi ng; ( 2) Fel l
commi t t ed t he of f ense i n an especi al l y hei nous, cr uel , or depr aved
manner i n t hat i t i nvol ved ser i ous physi cal abuse t o Ki ng; ( 3) Fel l
i nt ent i onal l y ki l l ed or at t empt ed t o ki l l mor e t han one per son i n a
si ngl e cr i mi nal epi sode.
3
The f our non- st at ut or y aggr avat i ng f act or s, as di scussed
bel ow, l i st ed i nt ent i onal and pr emedi t at ed act s r egar di ng t he car -
j acki ng, Mr s. Ki ng s abduct i on, and her event ual mur der .
4
I f you cannot answer a quest i on because you do not
under st and i t , wr i t e Do not under st and i n t he mar gi n
next t o t he quest i on. I f you cannot answer t he
quest i on because you do not know wr i t e Do not know.
I f you want t o expl ai n your answer , do so ei t her i n t he
space pr ovi ded on t he quest i onnai r e, or on one of t he
sheet s appended t o t he quest i onnai r e. . . . I f f or any
r eason you do not wi sh t o answer any par t i cul ar
quest i on, pl ease wr i t e t he wor d Pr i vat e i n t he mar gi n
next t o t he quest i on and we wi l l t ake t hi s mat t er up
wi t h you pr i vat el y, i f necessar y.
Because your answer s ar e par t of t he j ur y sel ect i on
pr ocess and become par t of t he r ecor d of t hi s cour t ,
t he answer s must be t r ut hf ul under t he penal t y of
per j ur y, and you must si gn t he quest i onnai r e at t he
end.
ECF No. 512- 23 at 34.
J ur y sel ect i on was conduct ed over f i f t een days bet ween May 4
and J une 6. The Cour t i ni t i al l y conduct ed gener al voi r di r e of
gr oups of si xt een j ur or s. Pot ent i al j ur or s wer e t hen quest i oned
i ndi vi dual l y, f i r st by t he Cour t and t hen by counsel f or t he
par t i es. The j ur y, al ong wi t h f our al t er nat es, was sel ect ed on
J une 9, 2005.
Fr omt hei r f i r st cont act wi t h t he Cour t , pr ospect i ve j ur or s
and t hose who wer e seat ed f or t he t r i al wer e advi sed and
r epeat edl y r emi nded t hat t hey must ser ve f ai r l y and
i mpar t i al l y, meani ng t hat t hei r ver di ct must be based on t he
evi dence pr esent ed i n t hi s cour t r oomand not on anyt hi ng t hat you
may have hear d or r ead or exper i enced out si de t he cour t r oom.
Id. at 26. They wer e f ur t her advi sed and r emi nded not t o di scuss
t he case wi t h ot her s or among t hemsel ves because a j ur y s
5
ver di ct must be f r ee f r omout si de i nf l uence. So, I amor der i ng
each and ever y one of you not t o di scuss t hi s case wi t h f ami l y,
f r i ends or any ot her per sons f r omt hi s poi nt on unt i l I ei t her
excuse you, or i f you ar e sel ect ed as a j ur or , unt i l t he case
concl udes. Id. at 32- 33.
At t he begi nni ng of each day of t r i al , j ur or s wer e asked i f
t hey had spoken t o anyone or l ear ned anyt hi ng about t he case f r om
out si de t he cour t r oom. See, e.g., Tr i al Tr . Vol . I - 1 at 10. At
t he end of each day of t r i al , t he Cour t r emi nded t he j ur or s not
t o di scuss t he case wi t h anyone or l ear n about t he case f r om
out si de t he cour t r oom. See, e.g., Tr i al Tr . Vol . I - 2 at 89. The
Cour t i nst r uct ed j ur or s t hat i f t hey di d l ear n anyt hi ng f r om
out si de t he cour t r oom, you need t o t el l me. Tr i al Tr . Vol . I - 1
at 15. The Cour t al so speci f i cal l y advi sed t he j ur or s not t o
conduct t hei r own i nvest i gat i ons. See Tr i al Tr . Vol . VI at 61.
C. Conviction, Sentence, and Appeal
The gui l t phase of t he t r i al commenced on J une 20, 2005. On
J une 24, 2005, t he j ur y r et ur ned a gui l t y ver di ct on al l f our
count s. The penal t y phase began on J une 28, 2005, and ext ended
f or ni ne days. The j ur y hear d mi t i gat i on evi dence f r omf our t een
wi t nesses, i ncl udi ng f ami l y member s, t eacher s, and soci al
wor ker s. The j ur y al so hear d f r omcor r ect i onal of f i cer s and a
pr i son t eacher about Fel l s adj ust ment t o pr i son. That evi dence,
as r ecount ed by t he Second Ci r cui t on di r ect appeal , est abl i shed
6
t hat
Fel l spent hi s ear l y year s i n Pennsyl vani a wi t h par ent s
who wer e chr oni c al cohol i cs. Bot h Fel l and hi s si st er
wer e r aped by babysi t t er s when t hey wer e young
chi l dr en, abandoned by t hei r par ent s, and r ai sed by
r el at i ves. Fel l had f r equent br ushes wi t h t he l aw of
i ncr easi ng ser i ousness and, f or a per i od of t i me, was
commi t t ed t o a home f or del i nquent yout h. Af t er hi s
r el ease, hi s i nvol vement wi t h t he l aw cont i nued t o
escal at e and was punct uat ed by ser i ous dr ug and al cohol
abuse.
United States v. Fell, 531 F. 3d 197, 205 ( 2d Ci r . 2008) . Fel l s
mot her Debr a moved t o Rut l and i n 1996, and Fel l j oi ned her i n
2000. Ther eaf t er , [ t ] hei r st or my r el at i onshi p cont i nued. Fel l
and hi s mot her ( and t hei r f r i ends) dr ank heavi l y, ar gued
f r equent l y, and abused dr ugs. Id. Fel l was t went y year s ol d at
t he t i me of t he mur der s.
On J ul y 14, 2005, t he j ur y unani mousl y f ound t hat Fel l
shoul d r ecei ve a sent ence of deat h on t he t wo capi t al count s. I n
addi t i on t o t he st at ut or y aggr avat i ng f act or s, t he j ur y f ound
t hat t he gover nment had pr oven t he f ol l owi ng non- st at ut or y
aggr avat i ng f act or s: ( 1) t hat Fel l par t i ci pat ed i n t he abduct i on
of Mr s. Ki ng t o f aci l i t at e hi s escape f r omt he ar ea i n whi ch he
and an accompl i ce had commi t t ed a doubl e mur der ; ( 2) t hat Fel l
par t i ci pat ed i n t he mur der of Mr s. Ki ng t o pr event her f r om
r epor t i ng t he ki dnappi ng and car - j acki ng t o aut hor i t i es; ( 3) t hat
Fel l par t i ci pat ed i n t he mur der of Mr s. Ki ng af t er subst ant i al
pr emedi t at i on t o commi t t he cr i me of car - j acki ng; and ( 4) t hat
Fel l caused l oss, i nj ur y, and har mt o t he vi ct i mand t he vi ct i m s
7
f ami l y. ECF No. 200 at 8- 9 ( Speci al Ver di ct For m) .
The j ur y al so f ound t hat Fel l s l awyer s had demonst r at ed
sever al mi t i gat i ng f act or s, i ncl udi ng Fel l s chi l dhood physi cal
and sexual abuse; hi s t r eat ment and i nst i t ut i onal i zat i on f or
ment al heal t h condi t i ons; hi s r egul ar abuse of al cohol and dr ugs
si nce chi l dhood; and t hat hi s par ent s wer e vi ol ent al cohol i cs who
abandoned hi mas a chi l d. No j ur or f ound t hat Fel l s capaci t y t o
appr eci at e hi s conduct was si gni f i cant l y i mpai r ed, or t hat he had
shown r emor se f or ki l l i ng Mr s. Ki ng. Ten of t he t wel ve j ur or s
f ound t hat Fel l was r ai sed wi t hout posi t i ve r ol e model s. Ten of
t wel ve j ur or s al so vot ed t o add a mi t i gat i ng f act or t hat had not
been pr esent ed: Tot al l i f e exper i ence, f ai l ur e of t he st at e of
Pennsyl vani a soci al and ment al heal t h ser vi ces t o ef f ect i vel y
i nt er vene i n hi s chi l dhood abuse and t o t r eat or addr ess hi s
ear l y ant i soci al behavi or . Id. at 13- 14.
I n 2008, t he Uni t ed St at es Cour t s of Appeal s af f i r med Fel l s
convi ct i on and sent ence. Fell, 531 F. 3d at 240. I n doi ng so,
t he Second Ci r cui t concl uded t hat t hi s Cour t pr esi ded over t hi s
compl i cat ed and di f f i cul t t r i al wi t h car e, f ai r ness, and an
exempl ar y concer n f or t he pr ot ect i on of Fel l s r i ght s. Id.
Fel l s pet i t i on f or r ehear i ng or , i n t he al t er nat i ve, f or
r ehear i ng en banc was deni ed, United States v. Fell, 571 F. 3d 264
( 2d Ci r . 2009) , and on Mar ch 22, 2010 t he Supr eme Cour t decl i ned
r evi ew. Fell v. United States, 559 U. S. 1031 ( Mem. 2010) .
8
D. Section 2255 Motion
On Mar ch 21, 2011, r epr esent ed by new counsel , Fel l t i mel y
f i l ed a mot i on f or wr i t of habeas cor pus pur suant t o 28 U. S. C.
2255. The mot i on i ncl udes al l egat i ons of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance
of counsel , pr osecut or i al mi sconduct , and j ur or mi sconduct . On
December 22, 2011, t he gover nment f i l ed i t s r esponse t o t he
Sect i on 2255 mot i on, seeki ng summar y di smi ssal of al l cl ai ms. On
May 10, 2013, t he Cour t i ssued t wo wr i t t en or der s, t he f i r st of
whi ch di smi ssed some of Fel l s cl ai ms. The second or der
per t ai ned sol el y t o t he j ur or mi sconduct cl ai ms, and f ound t hat
Fel l had est abl i shed a suf f i ci ent basi s f or f ur t her i nqui r y wi t h
r espect t o J ur or s 26, 143, and 162.
The j ur or mi sconduct i nqui r y r equi r ed sever al days of i n-
cour t t est i mony f r omj ur or s and ot her wi t nesses. On August 15,
2013, J ur or s 143 and 162 wer e cal l ed t o t est i f y. On Sept ember
27, 2013, t he Cour t hear d t est i mony f r omJ ur or 26. On Oct ober
22, 2013, Fel l moved t o f i l e an amended Sect i on 2255 mot i on,
addi ng new f act ual al l egat i ons agai nst t hese t hr ee and one
addi t i onal j ur or . On Mar ch 12, 2014, t he Cour t al l owed t he
amendment s as t o t he t hr ee i ni t i al j ur or s, but deni ed t he mot i on
wi t h r espect t o t he f our t h j ur or .
Fel l s amended Sect i on 2255 mot i on i s over 400 pages l ong
and set s f or t h appr oxi mat el y t went y cl ai ms f or r el i ef . The j ur or
mi sconduct cl ai ms t hemsel ves may be di vi ded i nt o t hr ee
9
cat egor i es. Fi r st , Fel l cl ai ms t hat J ur or s 26, 143, and 162
i nt ent i onal l y wi t hhel d mat er i al i nf or mat i on dur i ng j ur y
sel ect i on, and t hat f ul l di scl osur es woul d have suppor t ed val i d
chal l enges f or cause. Second, he al l eges t hat J ur or s 26 and 143
wer e exposed t o pr ej udi ci al f act s beyond t he t r i al r ecor d. Thi s
al l egat i on i ncl udes t he cl ai mt hat J ur or 143 sur r ept i t i ousl y
t r avel ed t o Rut l and i n t he mi dst of t r i al , vi ewed t he cr i me
scenes hi msel f , spoke wi t h a t hi r d par t y about t he f act s of t he
case, and shar ed hi s obser vat i ons wi t h t he r est of t he j ur y
panel . Ever y day of t r i al t her eaf t er , J ur or 143 al l egedl y l i ed
t o t he Cour t as he f ai l ed t o r eveal t hese ext r a- r ecor d
act i vi t i es. Fel l cont ends t hat J ur or 143' s act i ons pr ej udi ced
t he def ense s case, and t hat hi s di shonest y war r ant s a new t r i al
on t he basi s of j ur or bi as. Thi r d, Fel l cl ai ms t hat J ur or 143
coer ced anot her j ur or i nt o changi ng her vot e.
The Cour t hear d addi t i onal t est i mony on Mar ch 18- 19, 2014,
i ncl udi ng t hat of wi t nesses cl ai mi ng t o have knowl edge of J ur or
143' s t r i p t o Rut l and i n 2005. Ot her wi t nesses i ncl uded member s
of Fel l s post - convi ct i on l i t i gat i on t eam, an FBI case agent , and
J ur or 162 f or a second day of t est i mony. A non- t est i moni al
hear i ng was hel d on May 9, 2014, and t he par t i es have now
submi t t ed f ul l br i ef i ng on t he j ur or mi sconduct i ssue.
II. General Legal Principles
A. Section 2255 Standard
10
A pr i soner i n f eder al cust ody may f i l e a mot i on under 28
U. S. C. 2255 on t he gr ounds t hat hi s sent ence was i mposed i n
vi ol at i on of t he Const i t ut i on or f eder al l aws, was i ssued by a
cour t t hat di d not have j ur i sdi ct i on, was i n excess of t he l awf ul
maxi mum, or i s ot her wi se subj ect t o col l at er al at t ack. 28
U. S. C. 2255( a) . Rel i ef under Sect i on 2255 i s t her ef or e
gener al l y avai l abl e onl y f or a const i t ut i onal er r or , a l ack of
j ur i sdi ct i on i n t he sent enci ng cour t , or an er r or of l aw or f act
t hat const i t ut es a f undament al def ect whi ch i nher ent l y r esul t s
i n a compl et e mi scar r i age of j ust i ce. Cuoco v. United States,
208 F. 3d 27, 30 ( 2d Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng United States v. Bokun,
73 F. 3d 8, 12 ( 2d Ci r . 1995) ) .
The r easons f or nar r owl y l i mi t i ng t he r el i ef per mi t t ed
under 2255 a r espect f or t he f i nal i t y of cr i mi nal sent ences,
t he ef f i ci ent al l ocat i on of j udi ci al r esour ces, and an aver si on
t o r et r yi ng i ssues year s af t er t he under l yi ng event s t ook pl ace
ar e wel l known and basi c t o our adver sar y syst emof j ust i ce.
Bokun, 73 F. 3d at 12 ( quot i ng United States v. Addonizio, 442
U. S. 178, 184 & n. 11 ( 1979) ) ; see also Yick Man Mui v. United
States, 614 F. 3d 50, 53 ( 2d Ci r . 2010) . The movant bear s t he
bur den of est abl i shi ng by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence any
cl ai madvanced i n hi s Sect i on 2255 mot i on. See Triana v. United
States, 205 F. 3d 36, 40 ( 2d Ci r . 2000) ; Napoli v. United States,
45 F. 3d 680, 683 ( 2d Ci r . 1995) .
11
B. Death is Different
4
I n t hi s case, Fel l i s seeki ng r el i ef f r oma sent ence of
deat h. The Supr eme Cour t has l ong acknowl edged t hat a deat h
penal t y case i s f undament al l y di f f er ent f r oma non- capi t al
pr oceedi ng.
[ T] he penal t y of deat h i s qual i t at i vel y di f f er ent f r om
a sent ence of i mpr i sonment , however l ong. Deat h, i n
i t s f i nal i t y, di f f er s mor e f r oml i f e i mpr i sonment t han
a 100- year pr i son t er mdi f f er s f r omone of onl y a year
or t wo. Because of t hat qual i t at i ve di f f er ence, t her e
i s a cor r espondi ng di f f er ence i n t he need f or
r el i abi l i t y i n t he det er mi nat i on t hat deat h i s t he
appr opr i at e puni shment i n a speci f i c case.
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 305 ( 1976) ( pl ur al i t y
opi ni on) ( f oot not e omi t t ed) ; see also Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S.
586, 605 ( 1978) ( Gi ven t hat t he i mposi t i on of deat h by publ i c
aut hor i t y i s so pr of oundl y di f f er ent f r omal l ot her penal t i es, we
cannot avoi d t he concl usi on t hat an i ndi vi dual i zed deci si on i s
essent i al i n capi t al cases. ) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ; Gardner v.
Florida, 430 U. S. 349, 357 ( 1977) ( not i ng t hat deat h i s a
di f f er ent ki nd of puni shment f r omany ot her t hat may be i mposed
i n t hi s count r y) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) . Thi s gener al t enet t hat
deat h i s di f f er ent car r i es t hr ough t o habeas cor pus
pr oceedi ngs. See, e.g., Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668,
4
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 411 ( 1986) ( opi ni on of
Mar shal l , Br ennan, Bl ackmun, and St evens, J J . ) ( not i ng t hat
f act f i ndi ng i n a capi t al pr oceedi ng r equi r es a hei ght ened st andar d of
r el i abi l i t y as a nat ur al consequence of t he knowl edge t hat execut i on
i s t he most i r r emedi abl e and unf at homabl e of penal t i es; t hat deat h i s
di f f er ent ) .
12
704 ( 1984) ( Br ennan, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and di ssent i ng i n
par t ) ( obser vi ng i n habeas pr oceedi ng pur suant t o 28 U. S. C.
2254 t hat we have consi st ent l y r equi r ed t hat capi t al pr oceedi ngs
be pol i ced at al l st ages by an especi al l y vi gi l ant concer n f or
pr ocedur al f ai r ness and f or t he accur acy of f act f i ndi ng) .
C. Right to an Impartial Jury
The Si xt h Amendment pr ovi des t hat [ i ] n al l cr i mi nal
pr osecut i ons, t he accused shal l enj oy t he r i ght t o a . . . t r i al ,
by an i mpar t i al j ur y . . . . U. S. Const . Amend. VI . One
t ouchst one of a f ai r t r i al i s an i mpar t i al t r i er of f act a
j ur y capabl e and wi l l i ng t o deci de t he case sol el y on t he
evi dence bef or e i t . McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood,
464 U. S. 548, 554 ( 1984) ( quot i ng Smith v. Phillips, 455 U. S.
209, 217 ( 1982) ) ; accord United States v. Stewart, 433 F. 3d 273,
303 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) . The r i ght t o an i mpar t i al j ur y i s nowher e
as pr eci ous as when a def endant i s on t r i al f or hi s l i f e.
Sampson v. United States, 724 F. 3d 150, 163 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)
( Sampson II) ( ci t i ng Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 81, 85 ( 1988) ) .
The Feder al Deat h Penal t y Act ( FDPA) r equi r es a unani mous
j ur y t o concl ude t hat t he deat h penal t y i s war r ant ed. See 18
U. S. C. 3593, 3594. [ E] ach j ur or has t he power t o deci de t hat
a def endant wi l l l i ve r at her t han di e. Each j ur or must be abl e
t o make t hat deci si on based sol el y on t he evi dence, uni nf l uenced
by per sonal exper i ences t hat he or she may have had. United
13
States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151, 157 ( D. Mass. 2011)
( Sampson I) . When possi bl e j ur or mi sconduct i s br ought t o
t he t r i al j udge s at t ent i on he has a dut y t o i nvest i gat e and t o
det er mi ne whet her t her e may have been a vi ol at i on of t he [ S] i xt h
[ A] mendment . United States v. Lloyd, 462 F. 3d 510, 518 ( 6t h
Ci r . 2006) ( quot i ng United States v. Shackleford, 777 F. 2d 1141,
1145 ( 6t h Ci r . 1985) ) . I f even one [ par t i al ] j ur or i s
empanel ed and t he deat h sent ence i s i mposed, t he [ gover nment ]
i s di sent i t l ed t o execut e t he sent ence. Morgan v. Illinois, 504
U. S. 719, 729 ( 1992) .
III. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Fel l cl ai ms t hat hi s j ur y was not i mpar t i al , and t hat j ur or
mi sconduct cor r upt ed hi s capi t al t r i al . The Cour t now addr esses
Fel l s al l egat i ons agai nst each j ur or i n t ur n.
5

5
The gover nment has ar gued pr evi ousl y t hat Fel l s j ur or
mi sconduct cl ai ms ar e pr ocedur al l y def aul t ed. The Cour t has r ej ect ed
t hi s ar gument , not i ng t hat j ur or mi sconduct cl ai ms ar e poor l y sui t ed
t o r esol ut i on on di r ect appeal , and t hat t hi s i s par t i cul ar l y t r ue
wher e evi dence of j ur or mi sconduct does not appear i n t he t r i al
r ecor d. See Op. & Or der 3- 4, May 10, 2103, ECF No. 368 at 3- 4 ( ci t i ng
Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101, 104 ( 1942) ( per cur i am) ( hol di ng t hat
an i ssue was appr opr i at el y r ai sed by habeas cor pus pet i t i on wher e
[ t ] he f act s r el i ed on ar e dehor s t he r ecor d and t hei r ef f ect on t he
j udgment was not open t o consi der at i on and r evi ew on appeal ) ) . Her e,
j ur or mi sconduct was onl y di scover ed af t er j ur or s bel at edl y r eveal ed
t hei r act i ons t o habeas counsel . Accor di ngl y, Fel l had no basi s upon
whi ch t o pur sue hi s cl ai ms pr evi ousl y. See, e.g., United States v.
Jackson, 209 F. 3d 1103, 1108 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) ( f i ndi ng no pr ocedur al
def aul t wher e pet i t i oner di d not l ear n about t he f act ual pr edi cat e f or
a j ur y t amper i ng cl ai munt i l i nvest i gat or i nt er vi ewed j ur or mor e t han
t hr ee year s af t er t he t r i al ) ; Ida v. United States, 191 F. Supp. 2d
426, 436 ( S. D. N. Y. 2002) ( hol di ng t hat j ur or mi sconduct i ssue was
pr oper l y r ai sed i n a Sect i on 2255 mot i on) .
14
A. Juror 162
Fel l submi t s t hat dur i ng voi r di r e, J ur or 162 wi t hhel d
subst ant i al i nf or mat i on about her own per sonal hi st or y and t hat
of her son. He f i r st cl ai ms t he j ur or f ai l ed t o di scl ose t hat ,
l i ke Donal d Fel l , she was t he vi ct i mof sexual abuse as a chi l d.
J ur or 162' s hi st or y of sexual abuse was r eveal ed when at t or neys
f or Fel l i nt er vi ewed her i n 2011 about her exper i ence as a j ur or .
Af t er t he i nt er vi ew, t he j ur or si gned a wr i t t en decl ar at i on t hat
i ncl uded t he f ol l owi ng st at ement s:
At t r i al , we l ear ned t hat Donal d Fel l was abused as a
chi l d and t hat hi s par ent s wer e al cohol i cs. I was
sexual l y abused by my st epf at her f or year s and i t
di dn t t ur n me i nt o a mur der er . We al l have choi ces i n
l i f e and Donal d Fel l j ust chose evi l . Donal d Fel l had
pl ent y of chances t o get hel p, i ncl udi ng f r omt eacher s
and pr i nci pal s. He was gi ven l ot s of chances t o change
t hi ngs and di dn t t ake t hem. That was i mpor t ant t o me.
Fel l Hr g Ex. 6 at Bat es Nos. 2580- 81.
Fel l cont ends t hat J ur or 162' s f i r st oppor t uni t y t o r eveal
her past sexual abuse was on t he pr e- t r i al quest i onnai r es. The
l ong quest i onnai r e asked:
Q. 38( a) : Have you or has a f ami l y member or cl ose
f r i end ever been a wi t ness t o or t he vi ct i mof a cr i me?
The shor t quest i onnai r e asked essent i al l y t hi s same quest i on.
J ur or 162 answer ed No t o bot h. At t he August 2013 hear i ng, she
was cal l ed t o t est i f y about her r esponses.
J ur or 162 t est i f i ed t hat as a young chi l d she was r emoved
f r omt he cust ody of her bi ol ogi cal par ent s, pl aced i n a ser i es of
15
f ost er homes, and ul t i mat el y adopt ed. As she di scl osed t o Fel l s
at t or neys i n 2011, her adopt i ve f at her sexual l y abused her over a
per i od of sever al year s. When quest i oned why she di d not r eveal
t hi s abuse pr i or t o t r i al , she r esponded:
I di dn t connect i t . You know, t hi s i s somet hi ng t hat
I have never even t hought about . I mean, I went on and
l i ved my l i f e, never consi der ed i t . I never t hought
about i t . And so when t hat quest i on came up i n you
know, I woul d at t r i but e cr i me as havi ng somebody hol d a
gun t o my head or somebody st eal i ng my pur se or
somet hi ng of t hat nat ur e. I t s j ust somet hi ng t hat I
never t hought about . You know, I mean, I had a l ot of
ot her t hi ngs happen t o me.
. . .
My f at her was not convi ct ed of any cr i me, and I I
have not consi der ed mysel f a vi ct i mi n al l t hese year s,
and I di d not connect t hat quest i on.
Aug. 15, 2013 Hr g Tr . at 99- 100, 114.
The Cour t asked J ur or 162 whet her t he t r i al evi dence caused
her t o r ecal l her own exper i ences of sexual abuse:
COURT: But i s t her e i s t her e some l i nkage i n your mi nd,
at l east dur i ng t he cour se of t he t r i al , t hat your
exper i ence had some r el evance?
J UROR: No. You mean t he deci si on t hat I made? No.
COURT: Wel l , not necessar i l y t he deci si on, but as you ar e
goi ng t hr ough t he t r i al
J UROR: No.
COURT: Di d i t br i ng back memor i es?
J UROR: No, no. Thi s i s somet hi ng I never t hi nk about . .
. I j ust di d not connect i t .
Id. at 100- 01. The j ur or al so ci t ed t he passage of t i me as a
16
f act or :
J UROR: . . . I t s j ust , I was so young. I mean, I went
on and l i ved my l i f e. Ther e s so many di f f er ent
t hi ngs t hat have happened t o me i n my l i f e si nce
t hen I m71 year s ol d I never gave t hat you
know, I j ust , i t s somet hi ng you j ust don t
t hi nk about .
Id. at 100. Dur i ng her second day of t est i mony, t he j ur or agai n
st at ed t hat she di dn t connect [ her exper i ence of sexual abuse]
as bei ng a cr i me. Mar . 19, 2014 Hr g Tr . at 182.
Fel l has pr esent ed evi dence t o show t hat J ur or 162 r ecal l ed
and spoke about her chi l dhood sexual abuse on sever al occasi ons
i n t he year s i mmedi at el y pr ecedi ng t r i al . The t est i mony bef or e
t he Cour t est abl i shed t hat bet ween 1999 and t he Fel l t r i al i n
2005, J ur or 162 di scl osed her exper i ences of sexual abuse t o t wo
of her nei ghbor s on separ at e occasi ons. Mar . 19, 2014 Hr g Tr .
at 22 ( t est i mony of J ean Rat t a- Rober t s) ; id. at 59 ( t est i mony of
Suzann Wi dener ) . Pr i or t o t hat , she di scussed t he abuse dur i ng a
1996 cour t - or der ed psychol ogi cal eval uat i on. J ur or 162 expl ai ned
t o t he eval uat or t hat her past sexual abuse at one poi nt caused
her t o r un away f r omhome, and t hat even now t he t hought makes
[ her ] f eel di r t y. ECF No. 512- 44 at 98.
The j ur or al so r ecal l ed her chi l dhood sexual abuse when
i nt er vi ewed by Fel l s post - convi ct i on at t or neys. I n f act ,
accor di ng t o one of t he i nt er vi ewer s, At t or ney Di na Zl oczower , i t
was J ur or 162 who br ought up t he i ssue i n 2011 when asked about
her exper i ence as a j ur or . Mar . 18, 2014 Hr g Tr . at 79. Fel l
17
t her ef or e cl ai ms t hat J ur or 162 does r emember and t hi nk about her
exper i ence of chi l dhood sexual abuse, and t hat her r esponse on
t he quest i onnai r e as t o whet her she was t he vi ct i mof a cr i me was
di shonest .
I n addi t i on t o her hi st or y of sexual abuse, J ur or 162
al l egedl y wi t hhel d a host of ot her per sonal i nf or mat i on. Si nce
t r i al , Fel l has di scover ed t hat J ur or 162' s f i r st husband was
ki l l ed i n a wor k- r el at ed acci dent when her son, Pat r i ck, was a
smal l chi l d. Ther eaf t er , she became sever el y depr essed and was
t wi ce i nst i t ut i onal i zed f or sever al mont hs at t he Ver mont St at e
Hospi t al . Pat r i ck was pl aced i nt o f ost er car e and l i ved wi t h a
f ami l y member f or a per i od of t i me.
Whi l e J ur or 162 was at t he Ver mont St at e Hospi t al , an
at t or ney was appoi nt ed as her guar di an. That at t or ney pr oceeded
t o embezzl e J ur or 162' s asset s, i ncl udi ng r eal est at e. J ur or 162
was abl e t o r ecover onl y a smal l amount of t he embezzl ed asset s,
and t he at t or ney was never pr osecut ed. J ur or 162 spoke about t he
embezzl ement dur i ng t he 1996 psychol ogi cal eval uat i on r ef er enced
pr evi ousl y, but di d not di scl ose i t on t he j ur or quest i onnai r es
as a cr i me commi t t ed agai nst her . Fel l s habeas counsel
conf r ont ed her about t hi s omi ssi on at t he August 15, 2013
hear i ng.
COUNSEL: But t her e was anot her ver y ser i ous event [ i n
addi t i on t o sexual abuse] , a cr i mi nal event , t hat
you wer e a vi ct i mof t hat you di d not di scl ose,
and t hat woul d be when you wer e r i pped of f by
18
at t or ney Don Mi l ne, r i ght ?
J UROR: That s cor r ect .
COUNSEL: And you never ment i oned t hat ?
J UROR: No, because I di dn t t hi nk of i t .
Aug. 15, 2013 Hr g Tr . at 162.
At t he Ver mont St at e Hospi t al , J ur or 162 r epor t edl y
devel oped a r el at i onshi p wi t h one of t he nur ses, Luci l l e Tat r o.
Af t er her r el ease f r omt he hospi t al , J ur or 162 was r euni t ed wi t h
her son and t he t wo of t heml i ved wi t h Ms. Tat r o f or t he r est of
Pat r i ck s chi l dhood. Dur i ng t hat cohabi t at i on, Ms. Tat r o
r epor t edl y abused J ur or 162 and at one poi nt t hr eat ened her wi t h
a kni f e. Af t er t he r el at i onshi p ended, Ms. Tat r o al l egedl y
became abusi ve t owar d bot h J ur or 162 and t he j ur or s cur r ent
husband, and i n one i nci dent at t empt ed t o smash t hei r car
wi ndshi el d and r un t hemof f t he r oad. J ur or 162 ul t i mat el y f i l ed
a pol i ce compl ai nt , pr eci pi t at i ng Ms. Tat r o s ar r est and
pr osecut i on. These l at t er event s occur r ed i n J ul y of 1982,
t went y- t hr ee year s bef or e t he Fel l t r i al .
Fel l cont ends t hat J ur or 162' s vi ol ent hi st or y wi t h Ms.
Tat r o shoul d have been r eveal ed on t he j ur or quest i onnai r es. The
pr e- t r i al l ong quest i onnai r e asked:
36. Have you ever f i l ed a compl ai nt wi t h t he pol i ce agai nst
anyone?
J ur or 162 answer ed No. As di scussed above, Quest i on 38( a)
si mi l ar l y asked whet her t he j ur or , a f ami l y member or cl ose
19
f r i end had ever been wi t ness t o or t he vi ct i mof a cr i me. The
next sub- quest i on asked:
38( b) . Di d you or your f ami l y member or cl ose f r i end r epor t
t hat cr i me t o t he pol i ce or ot her l aw enf or cement
agency?
Because J ur or 162 answer ed No t o Quest i on 38( a) , she of f er ed no
i nf or mat i on i n r esponse t o Quest i on 38( b) . The r ecor d i ndi cat es
t hat not onl y di d J ur or 162 f i l e a pol i ce compl ai nt agai nst Ms.
Tat r o, but has f i l ed sever al ot her compl ai nt s wi t h pol i ce, most l y
per t ai ni ng t o noi se and ot her mi nor di sput es wi t h nei ghbor s.
Fel l al so ar gues t hat J ur or 162 l i ed about Ms. Tat r o s
physi cal abuse t owar d her son Pat r i ck. Dur i ng t he j ur or i nqui r y
i n August 2013, Fel l s counsel asked J ur or 162 about speci f i c
i nst ances of al l eged abuse by Ms. Tat r o, i ncl udi ng l ocki ng
Pat r i ck out i n t he col d and dr aggi ng hi mdown t he st ai r s by hi s
hai r . J ur or 162 r esponded t hat I don t know anyt hi ng about
t hat . Never hear d of t hat . Aug. 15, 2013 Hr g Tr . at 169.
Fel l ar gues t hat t hi s t est i mony i s bel i ed by document s f r omt he
st at e cour t s, i ncl udi ng a 1995 f ami l y psychol ogi cal eval uat i on i n
whi ch Pat r i ck di scussed hi s mi st r eat ment . J ur or 162 subsequent l y
submi t t ed an af f i davi t di scussi ng t he cont ent s of t hat
eval uat i on. I n her Mar ch 2014 t est i mony, J ur or 162 ul t i mat el y
conceded t hat , Lat er on, as t he year s pr ogr essed, my son t ol d me
cer t ai n t hi ngs t hat [ Tat r o] di d t o hi m, but I mysel f never
obser ved i t . Mar . 19, 2014 Hr g Tr . at 156.
20
Among J ur or 162' s appar ent omi ssi ons, per haps t he most
quest i onabl e per t ai ned t o her son s subst ance abuse and cr i mi nal
hi st or i es. The Cour t s shor t quest i onnai r e asked:
Have you, or anyone cl ose t o you, been a compl ai nant
i n a cr i mi nal case?
Fel l Hr g Ex. 2 at 2. J ur or 162 answer ed No. She el abor at ed
( al t hough not i n di r ect r esponse t o t he quest i on posed) t hat My
son was under Dept of Cor r ect i ons House ar r est f or DWI and
domest i c vi ol ence 16 year s ago. He i s now ass t manager at
Shaws, so he sur e has been a bet t er per son f or i t . Id.
The l ong quest i onnai r e asked:
43( a) . Have you or has a f ami l y member or cl ose f r i end ever
been char ged wi t h a cr i me?
Fel l Hr g Ex. 3 at 19. J ur or 162 r esponded Yes, and i n
r esponse t o Par t ( b) of t he same quest i on, aski ng about t he
r esul t of any pr osecut i on, st at ed: ( House ar r est ) my son DWI +
domest i c abuse He was under t he Dept of Cor r ect i ons f or 3 yr s
I nt ense Counsel i ng Best t hi ng ever happened t o hi m he i s now
a di f f er ent per son. Par t ( d) of t hat same quest i on asked
whet her anyt hi ng i n her son s exper i ence woul d make i t di f f i cul t
f or J ur or 162 t o si t as a f ai r and i mpar t i al j ur or . She answer ed
No, expl ai ni ng t hat [ m] y son was t r eat ed f ai r l y and i t hel ped
hi mchange hi s l i f e. Id. at 21.
Fel l cont ends t hat by di scl osi ng onl y l i mi t ed cr i mi nal
conduct si xt een year s pr i or , house ar r est , and DOC super vi si on,
21
J ur or 162 l i ed about her son s ext ensi ve cr i mi nal hi st or y. I n
suppor t , Fel l has i nt r oduced evi dence t o show t hat t hr ough t he
t i me of t r i al , J ur or 162' s son had been ar r est ed f or numer ous
cr i mes and convi ct ed of f our f el oni es. He ser ved t wo pr i son
t er ms, was subj ect ed t o mul t i pl e per i ods of par ol e and
super vi si on, and par t i ci pat ed i n mandat or y subst ance abuse and
domest i c abuse t r eat ment pr ogr ams.
Fel l s post - convi ct i on counsel conf r ont ed J ur or 162 wi t h her
son s cr i mi nal hi st or y at t he August 2013 hear i ng. When asked
about det ai l s of a 1983 convi ct i on, whi ch i ncl uded gun t hef t ,
J ur or 162 r esponded t hat I don t know anyt hi ng about t hat .
Aug. 15, 2013 Hr g Tr . at 156. Fel l not es t hat i n 1996, J ur or
162 r ecal l ed dur i ng t he cour t - or der ed psychol ogi cal eval uat i on
t hat her son had st ol en guns. When counsel i nqui r ed about her
son s 1997 convi ct i on f or br eaki ng i nt o hi s gi r l f r i end s home,
J ur or 162 t est i f i ed: I f what you ar e t el l i ng me i s t r ue, t hi s i s
t he f i r st I have hear d of i t , expl ai ni ng t hat her son had not
l i ved wi t h her si nce he was l i ke 18 year s ol d. So a l ot of what
you ar e t el l i ng me I don t I don t know anyt hi ng about i t .
Id. at 157.
Thi s l at t er asser t i on, t hat J ur or 162 was unawar e of her
son s convi ct i ons because t hey di d not l i ve t oget her , l acks
cr edi bi l i t y, as J ur or 162 and her son l i ved ei t her t oget her or i n
t he same i mmedi at e vi ci ni t y f or si gni f i cant per i ods of t i me over
22
t he decades pr ecedi ng t he t r i al . Evi dence of t hei r cohabi t at i on
i ncl udes a bai l st at ement f r om1992, i n whi ch Pat r i ck l i st ed t he
same addr ess f or bot h hi msel f and hi s mot her . Fur t her mor e, i n
t he cour se of t he 1996 psychol ogi cal eval uat i on, J ur or 162 st at ed
t hat she and her son wer e l i vi ng t oget her , and t hat i t was
st r essf ul t o have her son at home. I n 1997, Pat r i ck l i st ed hi s
mot her as one of hi s t i es t o t he l ocal communi t y, t hus suggest i ng
a cl ose r el at i onshi p. I n 1998, he pr ovi ded a home addr ess t hat ,
i n pr evi ous document s, had been l i st ed as hi s mot her s home. And
at t he Mar ch 18, 2014 hear i ng, wi t ness t est i mony cl ar i f i ed t hat
J ur or 162 and Pat r i ck l i ved i n adj acent apar t ment s at t he t i me of
hi s f our t h DWI ar r est i n 2001, and f or sever al year s t her eaf t er .
St at e cour t r ecor ds f ur t her i ndi cat e t hat , at l east as of
t he ear l y 1990s, J ur or 162 r egul ar l y spent t i me wi t h Pat r i ck s
son and was act i vel y i nvol ved i n f ami l y cour t pr oceedi ngs
i nvol vi ng her son and gr andson. I ndeed, J ur or 162 hi r ed an
at t or ney and f ought t o obt ai n vi si t at i on wi t h her gr andson. An
or der gr ant i ng such vi si t at i on was i ssued i n Apr i l 1997, j ust
pr i or t o Pat r i ck s ar r est f or t wo count s of si mpl e assaul t and
one count of f el ony unl awf ul t r espass. Thi s cl ose i nvol vement i n
f ami l y mat t er s r ender s i t i mpl ausi bl e t hat J ur or 162 was unawar e
of her son s pr obl ems wi t h t he l aw dur i ng t he year s i mmedi at el y
pr i or t o t r i al .
Fel l next cont ends t hat J ur or 162 di d not r epor t honest l y
23
about her son s and her own t r eat ment f or subst ance abuse. When
asked about subst ance abuse pr obl ems on t he j ur or quest i onnai r e,
J ur or 162 r esponded, my son al cohol . I n her August 2013
t est i mony, t he j ur or st at ed her bel i ef t hat Pat r i ck saw an
al cohol counsel or . . . at one t i me. Id. at 158. The evi dence
bef or e t he Cour t shows t hat J ur or 162' s son was t r eat ed f or
al cohol and dr ug abuse over a per i od of sever al year s, and t hat
J ur or 162 was awar e of much of t hi s t r eat ment . I n an af f i davi t
f i l ed i n t he cour se of her son s di vor ce pr oceedi ng, J ur or 162
st at ed:
Bet ween Oct ober 1992 and May 1995 my son, t he
Def endant , was l i vi ng i n var i ous f aci l i t i es and
i nst i t ut i ons as a r esul t of al cohol r el at ed i ssues and
cr i mi nal convi ct i ons. Thr oughout t hat per i od my son
r esi ded at Mapl e Leaf Far m, The Wi ndsor , Woodst ock,
Rut l and and Chi t t enden Cor r ect i onal Cent er s and Di smas
House i n Bur l i ngt on. Thr oughout t hat per i od I
t r anspor t ed [ her gr andson] t o see hi s f at her at hi s
var i ous l ocat i ons r egul ar l y and f ai t hf ul l y each
vi si t at i on per i od . . . . I essent i al l y t ook over my
son s vi si t at i on schedul e whi l e he was i ncar cer at ed.
ECF No. 512- 44 at 123- 24. I n Oct ober 2013, J ur or 162 di scl osed
t o t he Rut l and Her al d t hat her son s hi st or y of dr ug abuse began
when he was a t eenager . J ur or 162 her sel f al so r epor t edl y
r ecei ved t her apy f or al cohol abuse. Id. at 99.
I n her t est i mony on Mar ch 19, 2014, J ur or 162 suppl ement ed
some of her ear l i er st at ement s. As t o her son s subst ance abuse
t r eat ment s, she conceded t hat he had been t o Mapl e Leaf Far m
t wi ce, as wel l as Di smas House. Mar . 19, 2014 Hr g Tr . at 206.
24
She al so acknowl edged t hat her son had ser ved t i me i n pr i son.
Id. at 147. Wi t h r espect t o her t est i mony about not l i vi ng wi t h
her son si nce he was ei ght een, J ur or 162 expl ai ned t hat her son
had st ayed wi t h her at i nt er mi t t ent t i mes . . . l i ke i n bet ween
apar t ment s and l i vi ng condi t i ons. Id. at 153. I n one such
i nst ance, he l i ved wi t h her unt i l t he apar t ment next door t o me
opened up, and t hen he moved r i ght next door . Id.
6

Whi l e J ur or 162' s quest i onnai r e r esponses wer e pl ai nl y
l acki ng, she di d di scl ose suf f i ci ent i nf or mat i on about her son s
cr i mi nal hi st or y t o t r i gger quest i oni ng by counsel dur i ng voi r
di r e. Counsel s i nqui r y pr oceeded as f ol l ows:
COUNSEL: Let me j ust back up a l i t t l e bi t and ask about
t her e s goi ng t o be evi dence i n t hi s case t hat
Donni e s wel l , f i r st of al l , r egar di ng Donni e
Fel l per sonal l y, was abused al cohol and dr ugs
f r oma ver y, ver y young age, as young as ei ght
year s ol d. And so I amcur i ous as t o your own
per sonal exper i ence wi t h your son, whet her t hat i n
any way coul d af f ect your abi l i t y t o consi der t hat
as one of t he mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ances?
J UROR: You asked me a har d quest i on. Dr ugs and al cohol
6
Fel l s al l egat i ons of ot her f al se st at ement s by J ur or 162 ar e
not per suasi ve. Fel l cont ends t hat J ur or 162 deni ed t hat she or
anyone cl ose t o her had been a par t y i n a ci vi l sui t , ci t i ng f or
suppor t t he epi sode of embezzl ement and Pat r i ck s di vor ce and chi l d
cust ody pr oceedi ngs. The embezzl ement occur r ed decades ago. As t o
her son s cases, J ur or 162' s r ol e was l i mi t ed such t hat she may not
have r eal i zed she was f or mal l y a par t y t o t hose pr oceedi ngs.
Fel l al so cl ai ms t hat when asked her opi ni ons about t he f i el ds of
psychol ogy and psychi at r y, J ur or 162 st ar t ed t o make a negat i ve
st at ement , but had second t hought s, wr i t i ng: I ami n t he heal t h car e
f i el d and r espect t he opi ni on of t hese peopl e, but . Fel l cont ends
t hat by st r i ki ng t he wor d but , J ur or 162 was i nt ent i onal l y hi di ng
her hi st or y of psychi at r i c t r eat ment . The Cour t decl i nes t o make t hi s
i nf er ence.
25
can do a l ot t o you, yes, f r ommy own per sonal
exper i ence wi t h my son.
COUNSEL: Al l r i ght . So my quest i on i s
J UROR: But he I mean, my son, you know, was
r ehabi l i t at ed, t hr ough t he cor r ect i onal t hr ough
cor r ect i ons, whi ch was t he best t hi ng t hat ever
happened t o hi m. So t hat s a har d quest i on.
COUNSEL: Was t he oppor t uni t y t hat your son had, t hat was
pr ovi ded t hr ough t he Depar t ment of Cor r ect i ons,
somet hi ng t hat you t hought was si gni f i cant ?
J UROR: Ver y si gni f i cant .
COUNSEL: And how so?
J UROR: Because he had some t ough, t ough l ear ni ng t hi ngs,
t ough t hi ngs t o go t hr ough t o over come hi s
pr obl em.
COUNSEL: What di d i t t ake hi mt o get i nt er vent i on? The
aut hor i t y? What di d i t t ake t o get hi mt o a poi nt
wher e aut hor i t y had
J UROR: I t t ook cor r ect i ons comi ng t o hi s house
per i odi cal l y. I t t ook goi ng t o meet i ngs ever y
week. I t t ook l osi ng hi s dr i ver s l i cense. I
mean, i t t ook a l ot . He hi t t he bot t ombef or e he
went t o t he t op, yeah.
J ur or Voi r Di r e 9 at 136- 37. Counsel di d not i nqui r e any f ur t her
about Pat r i ck s cr i mi nal hi st or y.
The Cour t begi ns i t s l egal anal ysi s wi t h t he semi nal
McDonough deci si on. I n McDonough, t he Supr eme Cour t addr essed a
par t y s r i ght t o a new t r i al based upon a j ur or s nondi scl osur es
dur i ng voi r di r e. The Cour t not ed t he i mpor t ance of voi r di r e
f or expl or i ng possi bl e bi as.
Voi r di r e exami nat i on ser ves t o pr ot ect [ t he r i ght t o
an i mpar t i al j ur y] by exposi ng possi bl e bi ases, bot h
26
known and unknown, on t he par t of pot ent i al j ur or s.
Demonst r at ed bi as i n t he r esponses t o quest i ons on voi r
di r e may r esul t i n a j ur or bei ng excused f or cause;
hi nt s of bi as not suf f i ci ent t o war r ant chal l enge f or
cause may assi st par t i es i n exer ci si ng t hei r per empt or y
chal l enges. The necessi t y of t r ut hf ul answer s by
pr ospect i ve j ur or s i f t hi s pr ocess i s t o ser ve i t s
pur pose i s obvi ous.
McDonough, 464 U. S. at 554. McDonough al so not ed t hat l i t i gant s
ar e ent i t l ed t o a f ai r t r i al but not a per f ect one, f or t her e
ar e no per f ect t r i al s. Id. at 553 ( i nt er nal quot at i ons mar ks
and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Fur t her mor e, t he Cour t concl uded, t r i al
r epr esent s an i mpor t ant i nvest ment of pr i vat e and soci al
r esour ces, and i t i l l ser ves t he i mpor t ant end of f i nal i t y t o
wi pe t he sl at e cl ean si mpl y t o r ecr eat e t he per empt or y chal l enge
pr ocess because counsel l acked an i t emof i nf or mat i on whi ch
obj ect i vel y he shoul d have obt ai ned f r oma j ur or on voi r di r e
exami nat i on. Id. at 555.
McDonough was a per sonal i nj ur y case ar i si ng f r oma
l awnmower acci dent . Dur i ng voi r di r e, pr ospect i ve j ur or s wer e
asked whet her t hey or any of t hei r f ami l y member s had ever
suf f er ed an i nj ur y t hat r esul t ed i n di sabi l i t y or pr ol onged pai n
and suf f er i ng. The j ur y ul t i mat el y f ound i n f avor of t he
pl ai nt i f f , and t he def endant moved f or a new t r i al based upon t he
di scover y t hat one j ur or , havi ng answer ed t he voi r di r e quest i on
i n t he negat i ve, had a son who had sust ai ned a br oken l eg when
i nj ur ed by an expl odi ng t r uck t i r e. When quest i oned af t er war ds,
t he j ur or r epor t edl y expl ai ned t hat he di d not consi der t hat
27
i nj ur y t o be sever e or t o have r esul t ed i n a di sabi l i t y.
United States v. Shaoul, 41 F. 3d 811, 815 ( 2d Ci r . 1994) ( quot i ng
McDonough, 464 U. S. at 552 n. 3) . The McDonough Cour t det er mi ned
t hat t he j ur or s r esponse was mi st aken, t hough honest based
upon hi s under st andi ng of t he quest i on, and t hat no new t r i al was
r equi r ed. McDonough, 464 U. S. at 555.
7

McDonough est abl i shed t he st andar d f or r el i ef i n j ur or non-
di scl osur e cases. The Cour t hel d t hat i n or der t o obt ai n a new
t r i al based upon j ur or nondi scl osur e, a par t y must f i r st
demonst r at e t hat a j ur or f ai l ed t o answer honest l y a mat er i al
quest i on on voi r di r e, and t hen f ur t her show t hat a cor r ect
r esponse woul d have pr ovi ded a val i d basi s f or a chal l enge f or
cause. Id. at 556.
8
Accor di ngl y, a good f ai t h f ai l ur e t o
r espond cor r ect l y t o a quest i on does not al one war r ant a new
t r i al . Shaoul, 41 F. 3d at 81516.
Under McDonough, Fel l must f i r st demonst r at e j ur or
di shonest y dur i ng voi r di r e. Id. Voi r di r e i n t hi s case was
compr i sed of mul t i pl e phases, i ncl udi ng t he compl et i on of t he
7
Whi l e McDonough was a ci vi l case, subsequent cases have
appl i ed i t i n t he cr i mi nal cont ext . See, e.g., Stewart, 433 F. 3d at
303; United States v. Greer, 285 F. 3d 158, 17071 ( 2d Ci r . 2002) ;
United States v. Colombo, 869 F. 2d 149, 15152 ( 2d Ci r . 1989) .
8
I n hi s concur r ence, J ust i ce Br ennnan, j oi ned by J ust i ce
Mar shal l , cr i t i ci zed t hi s l egal st andar d: I n my vi ew, t he pr oper
f ocus when r ul i ng on a mot i on f or new t r i al i n t hi s si t uat i on shoul d
be on bi as of t he j ur or and t he r esul t i ng pr ej udi ce t o t he l i t i gant .
Id. at 557. As di scussed bel ow, cour t s have hel d t hat i n addi t i on t o
t he McDonough t est , a par t y may seek r el i ef by showi ng act ual or
i mpl i ed bi as.
28
shor t and l ong quest i onnai r es, f ol l owed by i ndi vi dual quest i oni ng
by t he Cour t and counsel . Fel l ar gues t hat J ur or 162 was
di shonest wi t h r espect t o her past sexual abuse, cr i mes commi t t ed
agai nst her and her son, her son s cr i mi nal and subst ance abuse
hi st or i es, and her own subst ance abuse.
I n det er mi ni ng t he cr edi bi l i t y of J ur or 162' s quest i onnai r e
r esponse wi t h r egar d t o sexual abuse, t he Cour t i s mi ndf ul of t he
f act t hat t he abuse occur r ed many decades bef or e t he Fel l t r i al .
The Cour t al so not es t hat t he j ur or quest i onnai r es asked about
cr i me. J ur or 162 t est i f i ed t hat she di d not consi der her
adopt i ve f at her s abuse, f or whi ch he was never pr osecut ed or
puni shed, a cr i me. Al t hough t he j ur or agr eed t hat sexual abuse
of a chi l d i s nowadays a cr i me, she cont r ast ed at t i t udes t owar d
sexual abuse back i n t hose days. Mar . 19, 2014 Hr g Tr . at
186.
The evi dence shows t hat J ur or 162 has di scussed her sexual
abuse i n t he r ecent past , i ncl udi ng di scussi ons wi t h nei ghbor s.
The Cour t t her ef or e di scr edi t s her t est i mony t o t he ef f ect t hat
she has compl et el y f or got t en about t he abuse. Nonet hel ess, i t i s
concei vabl e t hat t he i nqui r y about cr i me di d not pr ompt J ur or
162 t o di scl ose t hat exper i ence on her quest i onnai r es.
The j ur or s f ai l ur e t o di scl ose t hat she had been t he vi ct i m
of embezzl ement i s equal l y under st andabl e. Agai n, t he of f ense
t ook pl ace decades bef or e t he Fel l t r i al , and t her e was never an
29
ar r est , pr osecut i on, or convi ct i on. See, e.g., Dyer v. Calderon,
151 F. 3d 970, 973 ( 9t h Ci r . 1998) ( expl ai ni ng t hat cour t s must
be t ol er ant , as j ur or s may f or get i nci dent s l ong bur i ed i n t hei r
mi nds, mi sunder st and a quest i on or bend t he t r ut h a bi t t o avoi d
embar r assment ) .
J ur or 162' s r esponses wi t h r egar d t o Ms. Tat r o ar e mor e
di f f i cul t t o r econci l e. I t i s concei vabl e t hat epi sodes of
domest i c vi ol ence wer e not consi der ed by t he j ur or t o have been
cr i mi nal act s. However , t he assaul t on J ur or 162 and her husband
t hat gave r i se t o a pol i ce compl ai nt , and Ms. Tat r o s
pr osecut i on, ar guabl y shoul d have been di scl osed. Agai n,
however , t her e was a si gni f i cant l apse of t i me bet ween t hose
event s, whi ch occur r ed i n 1982, and t he Fel l j ur y sel ect i on i n
2005. J ur or 162 al so t est i f i ed t hat , as she r ecal l ed, i t was her
husband who f i l ed t he pol i ce compl ai nt agai nst Ms. Tat r o. Mar .
19, 2014 Hr g Tr . at 197. The Cour t i s not per suaded t hat t he
j ur or was i nt ent i onal l y di shonest i n t hi s r egar d.
The r ecor d wi t h r espect t o J ur or 162' s son, and hi s
subst ant i al cr i mi nal and subst ance abuse r ecor ds, al so pr esent s a
cl ose quest i on wi t h r espect t o t he j ur or s di shonest y. J ur or 162
di scl osed t hat her son had a cr i mi nal r ecor d, i ncl udi ng DWI and
domest i c assaul t s. That she ser i ousl y under - r epor t ed hi s
cr i mi nal hi st or y i s undi sput ed. However , t he wr i t t en j ur or
quest i onnai r es must be vi ewed i n cont ext . The l ong quest i onnai r e
30
i n par t i cul ar consi st ed of 75 quest i ons not i ncl udi ng sub- par t s.
When pr ompt ed t o di scl ose f ami l y cr i mi nal hi st or y, J ur or 162
exceeded t he space pr ovi ded, and essent i al l y gave a shor t
synopsi s of her son s cr i mi nal past . I ndeed, whi l e Pat r i ck di d
have sever al ar r est s and convi ct i ons, t he maj or i t y of hi s
of f enses coul d be summar i zed as ei t her DWI or domest i c abuse.
At voi r di r e, counsel had t he oppor t uni t y t o del ve deeper
i nt o J ur or 162' s own hi st or y and t hat of her son. The Cour t
f i nds t hat her r esponses t o counsel s quest i ons wer e nei t her
evasi ve nor di shonest . When counsel i nqui r ed about t he pot ent i al
i mpact of her son s hi st or y, t he j ur or conceded t hat i t was a
di f f i cul t quest i on. She acknowl edged t hat she had seen t he
ef f ect s of dr ugs and al cohol , and t hat her son had been t hr ough
har d t i mes. Her answer s al so suggest ed t hat her son had been
under admi ni st r at i ve super vi si on, par ol e, and/ or r ehabi l i t at i ve
pr ogr ammi ng, wi t h cor r ect i ons comi ng t o t he house per i odi cal l y
and meet i ngs ever y week. J ur or Voi r Di r e 9 at 137.
Vi ewed i n t hi s cont ext , t he j ur or s f ai l ur e t o f ul l y r epor t
t he ext ent of her son s many convi ct i ons does not appear t o be
t he r esul t of di shonest y. Fi r st , t he st r uct ur e of t he j ur or
quest i onnai r es di d not pr ovi de f or or i nvi t e l engt hy di scussi ons
of cr i mi nal hi st or i es. Second, t he j ur or di scl osed suf f i ci ent
i nf or mat i on f or counsel t o pr obe f ur t her , and counsel di d so onl y
t o a ver y l i mi t ed ext ent . See Lopez v. Aramark Uniform & Career
31
Apparel, Inc., 417 F. Supp. 2d 1062, 1070 ( N. D. I owa 2006)
( not i ng i n j ur or nondi scl osur e case t hat t he bet t er appr oach
pl aces t he bur den on counsel t o ask quest i ons of a speci f i c
nat ur e wi t h r espect t o f act s t hat may be i mpor t ant i n voi r
di r e) ; see also McDonough, 464 U. S. at 555 ( st at i ng t hat a new
t r i al shoul d not gr ant ed because counsel l acked an i t emof
i nf or mat i on whi ch obj ect i vel y he shoul d have obt ai ned f r oma
j ur or on voi r di r e exami nat i on) . Whi l e t hese f act s may be
r el evant t o Fel l s ( yet t o be l i t i gat ed) cl ai ms of i nef f ect i ve
assi st ance of counsel , t hey do not f avor gr ant i ng r el i ef on hi s
j ur or mi sconduct cl ai m.
Thi s i s not t o say t hat J ur or 162' s t est i mony dur i ng t hi s
post - convi ct i on pr oceedi ng has been compl et el y f or t hcomi ng. To
t he cont r ar y, sever al of her st at ement s bef or e t he Cour t di d not
r i ng t r ue, i ncl udi ng t he suggest i on t hat she has compl et el y
f or got t en about her exper i ence of sexual abuse, and t hat she was
unawar e of much of her son s cr i mi nal hi st or y. The Cour t
di st i ngui shes, however , bet ween t he j ur or s per f or mance whi l e
compl et i ng a l engt hy pr e- t r i al quest i onnai r e, and her behavi or
dur i ng a cont est ed t est i moni al hear i ng at whi ch her cr edi bi l i t y
was bei ng quest i oned.
Whi l e st at ement s dur i ng a post - convi ct i on hear i ng ar e
gener al l y r el evant t o cr edi bi l i t y, and may suppor t a f i ndi ng of
j ur or di shonest y, see Sampson II, 724 F. 3d at 163, t hey ar e
32
di f f er ent i n nat ur e f r ompr e- t r i al di scl osur es. Once cal l ed i nt o
Cour t , J ur or 162 had r eason t o be def ensi ve about her r esponses.
The exper i ence of t est i f yi ng was cl ear l y st r essf ul f or t he j ur or ,
as at one poi nt t he Cour t was compel l ed t o cal l a r ecess af t er
she became emot i onal and agi t at ed. Test i f yi ng i n t hat sor t of
host i l e si t uat i on di f f er s si gni f i cant l y f r omcompl et i ng a
quest i onnai r e, or answer i ng unt hr eat eni ng quest i ons f r omdef ense
counsel at voi r di r e. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t does not vi ew J ur or
162' s l ack of cr edi bi l i t y i n t hese r ecent pr oceedi ngs as
necessar i l y di scr edi t i ng her r esponses ei ght year s pr i or dur i ng
t he j ur y sel ect i on pr ocess.
The Cour t s vi ew of J ur or 162' s cr edi bi l i t y i s al so t emper ed
by her per sonal hi st or y and cour t r oomdemeanor . J ur or 162 has
l i ved t hr ough sever al t r agedi es and was t wi ce i nst i t ut i onal i zed.
The j ur or s r ecent per sonal hi st or y i ncl udes numer ous conf l i ct s
wi t h nei ghbor s, and t her e was t est i mony suggest i ng al cohol
dependency. Thr oughout t he cour se of i nt ense exami nat i on by
Fel l s post - convi ct i on counsel , t he j ur or s i nsi st ence upon her
honest y was consi st ent and vehement . She was at t i mes emot i onal ,
but most l y i n r esponse t o accusat i ons of l yi ng. Fi nal l y, whet her
J ur or 162 has f ul l y accept ed her son s hi st or y of cr i mi nal i t y and
subst ance abuse, or her own di f f i cul t past , i s not cl ear , and t he
r ol e of any possi bl e deni al was di f f i cul t t o ascer t ai n i n a
cour t r oomset t i ng.
33
McDonough r equi r es a movi ng par t y t o show t hat a j ur or
f ai l ed t o answer honest l y a mat er i al quest i on on voi r di r e. 464
U. S. at 556. Her e, Fel l has f ai l ed t o show t hat J ur or 162' s
r esponses on t he j ur or quest i onnai r e and dur i ng voi r di r e, whi l e
i ncompl et e, wer e act ual l y di shonest .
9

Because t he quest i on of J ur or 162' s honest y i s a cl ose one,
t he Cour t wi l l consi der ot her f act or s i n t he McDonough anal ysi s.
Wr i t i ng f or t he Cour t i n McDonough, t hen- J ust i ce Rehnqui st not ed
t hat [ t ] he mot i ves f or conceal i ng i nf or mat i on may var y, but onl y
t hose r easons t hat af f ect a j ur or s i mpar t i al i t y can t r ul y be
sai d t o af f ect t he f ai r ness of a t r i al . 464 U. S. at 556; Greer,
285 F. 3d at 172- 73 ( movant must show t hat j ur or s di shonest y
evi denced par t i al i t y) ; Sampson I, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 173 ( as
ar t i cul at ed by McDonough, t he par t y seeki ng r el i ef must show a
mot i ve t hat cal l s t he j ur or s i mpar t i al i t y i nt o quest i on) .
9
Fel l compar es t hi s case t o t he f act s i n Sampson, i n whi ch a
deat h sent ence was vacat ed on t he basi s of McDonough. Wi t h r espect t o
j ur or di shonest y, t he di f f er ences bet ween t he t wo cases ar e st ar k. I n
Sampson, t he j ur or deni ed on her quest i onnai r e any per sonal or f ami l y
exper i ence wi t h dr ugs, cr i me, or pr i son, and f ai l ed t o di scl ose t hat
she had a daught er . Dur i ng t he Sect i on 2255 pr oceedi ng, she admi t t ed
t hat she had l i ed, and t hat i n f act her husband r egul ar l y abused
al cohol and mar i j uana, had menaced her wi t h a shot gun, and had
vi ol at ed an abuse pr event i on or der . The j ur or al so admi t t ed t hat she
had a daught er , and t hat t he daught er was a cocai ne addi ct who had
ser ved t i me i n pr i son. The j ur or t est i f i ed t hat she had t r i ed t o
f or get about t hese exper i ences because t hi nki ng of t hemwas ki l l i ng
her , and t hat she had been unwi l l i ng t o admi t t hat such event s coul d
happen i n her f ami l y. Sampson II, 724 F. 3d at 162. J ur or 162, i n
cont r ast , r eveal ed not onl y t hat she has a son, but a son wi t h
subst ance abuse i ssues and a cr i mi nal r ecor d. J ur or 162 al so
mai nt ai ns t hat she di d not l i e dur i ng voi r di r e.
34
Whet her J ust i ce Rehnqui st s st at ement const i t ut es an i ndependent
r equi r ement under McDonough i s unset t l ed.
10
Nonet hel ess, Fel l
has f ai l ed t o show t hat J ur or 162' s di shonest y, i f any,
demonst r at ed a par t i al i t y t hat af f ect ed t he f ai r ness of t r i al .
Fel l cont ends t hat J ur or 162 was dr i ven by an i mpr oper
10
The Four t h Ci r cui t t r eat s mot i ve as an addi t i onal pr ong of
t he McDonough t est . See McNeill v. Polk, 476 F. 3d 206, 224 n. 8 ( 4t h
Ci r . 2007) ( Ki ng, J . , concur r i ng i n par t and concur r i ng i n t he
j udgment ) ( r ef er r i ng t o mot i ve as t he t hi r d pr ong of McDonough) ;
Conaway v. Polk, 453 F. 3d 567, 588 ( 4t h Ci r . 2006) ( Even wher e, as
her e, t he t wo par t s of t he McDonough t est have been sat i sf i ed, a
j ur or s bi as i s onl y est abl i shed under McDonough i f t he j ur or s
mot i ves f or conceal i ng i nf or mat i on or t he r easons t hat af f ect [ t he]
j ur or s i mpar t i al i t y can t r ul y be sai d t o af f ect t he f ai r ness of [ t he]
t r i al ) ( ci t i ng McDonough, 464 U. S. at 556) . The Ni nt h Ci r cui t has
si mi l ar l y concl uded t hat [ u] nder McDonough, a new t r i al i s war r ant ed
onl y i f . . . [ t he j ur or s] r easons f or maki ng t he di shonest r esponse
cal l her i mpar t i al i t y i nt o quest i on. Pope v. Man-Data, Inc., 209
F. 3d 1161, 1164 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) . The Second Ci r cui t , whi l e not
assi gni ng mot i ve i t s own pr ong, has acknowl edged t hat t he j ur or s
r eason f or l yi ng must have a bear i ng on [ t he j ur or s] i mpar t i al i t y.
United States v. Langford, 990 F. 2d 65, 68 ( 2d Ci r . 1993) . I n
Langford, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound no basi s f or a new t r i al because
t he j ur or s mot i ve f or di shonest y her embar r assment about a pr i or
pr ost i t ut i on convi ct i on di d not show par t i al i t y. Id. at 69- 70. The
Second Ci r cui t af f i r med, and has si nce cl ar i f i ed t hat i n r eachi ng t hi s
concl usi on, t he Langford cour t was f ocused on t he second pr ong of t he
McDonough t est , i.e., whet her t he j ur or woul d have been subj ect t o a
val i d chal l enge f or cause based upon nondi scl osur es. Shaoul, 41 F. 3d
at 815. I n Colombo, a j ur or f ai l ed t o di scl ose t hat her br ot her - i n-
l aw was an at t or ney f or t he gover nment because she f ear ed t hat
di scl osur e woul d r ender her i nel i gi bl e t o ser ve. The j ur or al so
f ai l ed t o di scl ose her bel i ef t hat one of t he l ocat i ons wher e
def endant s wer e al l eged t o have conspi r ed was a hang out f or
gangst er s. 869 F. 2d at 150. The Second Ci r cui t di d not al i gn ei t her
st at ement wi t h a speci f i c McDonough pr ong, but has si nce not ed t hat
because t he Colombo j ur or admi t t ed not onl y conceal ment , but
conceal ment of f act s f r omwhi ch speci f i c bi as coul d be i nf er r ed, t he
al l eged l i es, i f est abl i shed, woul d demonst r at e bot h di shonest y and
par t i al i t y and woul d sat i sf y bot h pr ongs of t he McDonough t est .
Stewart, 433 F. 3d at 305; see also Greer, 285 F. 3d at 172- 73 ( [ i ] t
was not si mpl y t hat t he l i es [ i n Colombo] wer e del i ber at e, but t hat
t he deliberateness of the particular lies evidenced partiality)
( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .
35
desi r e t o be sel ect ed as a j ur or . I f pr oven, t hi s ar gument woul d
demonst r at e a mot i ve t hat i ndi cat es par t i al i t y, and woul d t hus
pr ovi de a val i d basi s f or r el i ef . See Dyer, 151 F. 3d at 983;
United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 468 ( S. D. N. Y.
2012) . Fel l s br i ef ar gues t hat J ur or 162' s mot i ve i s r eveal ed
by her quest i onnai r es, i n whi ch she ci t ed her i nt er est s i n t r ue
cr i me books, cour t t el evi si on, and comment at or s such as Nancy
Gr ace. J ur or 162 al so di scl osed her at t ent i on t o hi gh pr of i l e
cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs such as t he Mi chael J ackson case, t he Scot t
Pet er son case, and t he O. J . Si mpson case. J ur or 162 conf i r med a
keen i nt er est i n t r i al s i n her August 2013 t est i mony. Based upon
t hese f act s, Fel l cont ends t hat J ur or 162 desi r ed t o be sel ect ed
as a j ur or , and t hat [ h] er behavi or dur i ng voi r di r e . . . was
i n ser vi ce of t hi s goal . ECF No. 509 at 104. Fel l al so ar gues
t hat J ur or 162' s di shonest y al one i s evi dence of her desi r e t o be
r et ai ned as a j ur or .
Fel l s mot i ve ar gument i s based l ar gel y upon ci r cumst ant i al
evi dence and si gni f i cant specul at i on. I f J ur or 162 was i n f act
di shonest , i t i s unknown whet her her di shonest y was based upon
her desi r e t o be sel ect ed f or t he j ur y, or upon some ot her
i nt er est t hat may or may not be r el evant t o her par t i al i t y. See
generally Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U. S. 1, 8 ( 1995) ( st at i ng t hat
a f eder al cour t cannot gr ant habeas r el i ef on t he basi s of
l i t t l e mor e t han specul at i on wi t h sl i ght suppor t ) . Whi l e t her e
36
i s evi dence t o suggest t hat J ur or 162 enj oys t r i al s and may have
want ed t o be sel ect ed, t hat evi dence does not est abl i sh whet her
her di shonest y, i f any, was dr i ven by t hat desi r e. See United
States v. Greer, 998 F. Supp. 399, 407 ( D. Vt . 1998) ( The Cour t
wi l l not at t r i but e a mal i ci ous desi gn t o a j ur or wher e t he
evi dence does not i ndi cat e one. ) .
The r eason f or a j ur or s di shonest y need not necessar i l y be
ei t her expr ess or nef ar i ous. For exampl e, i n Sampson, t he
j ur or s di shonest y was l i nked t o her i nabi l i t y t o admi t t o a
f ami l y hi st or y of vi ol ence, dr ugs, and i ncar cer at i on. The
di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat t he j ur or s cl ear emot i onal
di st r ess about t hese i ssues woul d have, i n t ur n, r ender ed her
unabl e t o be i mpar t i al when such i ssues came t o l i ght . Sampson
I, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 194 ( concl udi ng t hat t he j ur or s r easons
f or l yi ng dur i ng voi r di r e r ef l ect her deep emot i onal di st r ess
about event s si mi l ar t o t hose pr esent ed i n t he t r i al and ar e,
t her ef or e, r easons t hat af f ect [ her ] i mpar t i al i t y. ) ( quot i ng
McDonough, 464 U. S. at 556) . On appeal , t he Fi r st Ci r cui t agr eed
wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t s f act ual f i ndi ngs and appl i cat i on of t he
l aw.
[ The j ur or s] di spl ay of emot i onal di st r ess i l l umi nat es
[ her ] mot i ves f or l yi ng. The McDonough Cour t made
cl ear t hat onl y t hose r easons [ f or l yi ng] t hat af f ect
a j ur or s i mpar t i al i t y can t r ul y be sai d t o af f ect t he
f ai r ness of a t r i al . 464 U. S. at 556. Her e, i t i s
f ar mor e l i kel y t han not t hat as t he di st r i ct cour t
f oundJ ur or C s r easons f or l yi ng about P and J
i mpai r ed her abi l i t y t o deci de t he case sol el y on t he
37
evi dence. The magni t ude of J ur or C' s emot i onal
di st r ess st r ongl y suggest s t hat i t woul d have been a
Si syphean t ask f or her t o separ at e t he evi dence
pr esent ed at t he penal t y- phase hear i ng f r omher i nt ense
f eel i ngs about her own l i f e exper i ences.
Sampson II, 724 F. 3d at 167.
I n t hi s case, agai n assumi ng di shonest y, Fel l has not
demonst r at ed t hat J ur or 162 had a mot i ve f or l yi ng. Unl i ke t he
j ur or i n Sampson, J ur or 162 di scl osed t hat her son has a hi st or y
of subst ance abuse and cr i mi nal i t y. Mor eover , whi l e t he Sampson
j ur or admi t t ed t o l yi ng, J ur or 162 mai nt ai ns t hat she di d not l i e
and has pr ovi ded sever al expl anat i ons f or why she answer ed her
shor t and l ong quest i onnai r es as she di d. Whi l e t he Cour t and
t he par t i es may specul at e about ot her r easons and mot i vat i ons f or
her f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de mor e t hor ough i nf or mat i on dur i ng voi r
di r e, t her e i s i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat
her mot i ves f or conceal i ng i nf or mat i on . . . af f ect [ ed her ]
i mpar t i al i t y. McDonough, 464 U. S. at 556.
I f t he Cour t assumes bot h di shonest y and a mot i ve t hat
sat i sf i es t he McDonough cr i t er i a, i t must next consi der whet her
J ur or 162 woul d have been subj ect t o a val i d chal l enge f or cause.
Id. Under t hi s pr ong of McDonough, t he t est i s not whet her t he
t r ue f act s woul d compel t he Cour t t o r emove a j ur or f or cause,
but r at her whet her a t r ut hf ul r esponse woul d have pr ovi ded a
val i d basi s f or a chal l enge f or cause. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp.
2d at 470 ( quot i ng McDonough, 464 U. S. at 556) . Accor di ngl y, t he
38
cour t must det er mi ne i f i t woul d have gr ant ed t he hypot het i cal
chal l enge. Greer, 285 F. 3d at 171.
I n t he Second Ci r cui t , a j ur or may be chal l enged f or cause
on t he basi s of act ual , i mpl i ed, or i nf er r ed bi as. See United
States v. Torres, 128 F. 3d 38, 43 ( 2d Ci r . 1997) . Act ual bi as
i s bi as i n f act . Id. ( quot i ng United States v. Wood, 299 U. S.
123, 133 ( 1936) ) ; see also Greer, 285 F. 3d at 171. A j ur or i s
f ound by t he j udge t o be par t i al ei t her because t he j ur or admi t s
par t i al i t y . . . or t he j udge f i nds act ual par t i al i t y based upon
t he j ur or s voi r di r e answer s. Torres, 128 F. 3d at 43; see,
e.g., Hughes v. United States, 258 F. 3d 453, 456, 460 ( 6t h Ci r .
2001) ( r equi r i ng a new t r i al af t er seat ed j ur or had expr essed
bi as agai nst def ense based on her r el at i onshi ps wi t h l aw
enf or cement of f i cer s) .
Act ual bi as i s gener al l y evi denced by expr ess pr oof .
United States v. Haynes, 398 F. 2d 980, 984 ( 2d Ci r . 1968) . For
exampl e, i n Torres, a j ur or t est i f i ed t hat because of hi s
exper i ence wi t h dr ug deal er s, he woul d not be abl e t o f ai r l y
j udge t he cr edi bi l i t y of a wi t ness who had deal t dr ugs, st at i ng
t hat I t hi nk t hey r e t he wor st peopl e on ear t h and I woul dn t
bel i eve t hemno mat t er what t hey sai d. 128 F. 3d at 44. Her e,
J ur or 162 di d not admi t t o any such par t i al i t y. Nor i s t her e any
suggest i on t hat her voi r di r e r esponses wer e equi vocal when asked
i f she coul d be i mpar t i al . Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t woul d not have
39
gr ant ed a hypot het i cal chal l enge on t he basi s of act ual bi as.
I mpl i ed bi as, al so known as pr esumed bi as, i s bi as t hat i s
pr esumed as a mat t er of l aw. See id. at 45. I n cont r ast t o t he
i nqui r y f or act ual bi as, whi ch f ocuses on whet her t he r ecor d at
voi r di r e suppor t s a f i ndi ng t hat t he j ur or was i n f act par t i al ,
t he i ssue f or i mpl i ed bi as i s whet her an aver age per son i n t he
posi t i on of t he j ur or i n cont r over sy woul d be pr ej udi ced. Id.
Adher i ng t o J ust i ce O Connor s admoni t i on t hat i mpl i ed bi as
shoul d be r eser ved f or ext r eme si t uat i ons, Greer, 285 F. 3d at
172 ( quot i ng Smith, 455 U. S. at 222 ( O Connor , J . , concur r i ng) ) ,
t he Second Ci r cui t has caut i oned t hat aut omat i cal l y pr esumed
bi as deal s mai nl y wi t h j ur or s who ar e r el at ed t o t he par t i es or
who wer e vi ct i ms of t he al l eged cr i me i t sel f . Id. ( quot i ng
Torres, 128 F. 3d at 45) . J ur or 162 had no such r el at i onshi ps t o
t he par t i es, counsel , or t he cr i me i t sel f , and her omi ssi ons
dur i ng voi r di r e di d not pr esent t he sor t of ext r eme si t uat i on
t hat woul d qual i f y f or pr esumpt i ve bi as. Id.
The Second Ci r cui t has al so r ecogni zed a t hi r d f or mof
par t i al i t y, known as i nf er r ed bi as, appl i cabl e i n a f ew
ci r cumst ances t hat i nvol ve no showi ng of act ual bi as, and t hat
f al l out si de of t he i mpl i ed bi as cat egor y, wher e a cour t may,
never t hel ess, pr oper l y deci de t o excuse a j ur or . Torres, 128
F. 3d at 46- 47. Bi as may be i nf er r ed when a j ur or di scl oses a
f act t hat bespeaks a r i sk of par t i al i t y suf f i ci ent l y si gni f i cant
40
t o war r ant gr ant i ng t he t r i al j udge di scr et i on t o excuse t he
j ur or f or cause, but not so gr eat as t o make mandat or y a
pr esumpt i on of bi as. Id. at 47. I n Torres, t he Second Ci r cui t
decl i ned t o consi der t he pr eci se scope of a t r i al j udge s
di scr et i on t o i nf er bi as. Id.
I t i s enough f or t he pr esent t o not e t hat cases i n
whi ch a j ur or has engaged i n act i vi t i es t hat cl osel y
appr oxi mat e t hose of t he def endant on t r i al ar e
par t i cul ar l y apt . The exer ci se of t he t r i al j udge s
di scr et i on t o gr ant chal l enges f or cause on t he basi s
of i nf er r ed bi as i s especi al l y appr opr i at e i n such
si t uat i ons. Because [ i n such cases] t he bi as of a
j ur or wi l l r ar el y be admi t t ed by t he j ur or hi msel f ,
par t l y because t he j ur or may have an i nt er est i n
conceal i ng hi s own bi as and par t l y because t he j ur or
may be unawar e of i t , [ par t i al i t y] necessar i l y must be
i nf er r ed f r omsur r oundi ng f act s and ci r cumst ances.
McDonough Power Equip., 464 U. S. at 558 ( Br ennan, J . ,
concur r i ng) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .
Id.
11
Ther ef or e, t he doct r i ne of i nf er abl e bi as, whi ch cour t s
have l ong i mpl i ci t l y assumed t o exi st , Torres, 128 F. 3d at 43,
per mi t s a cour t i n i t s di scr et i on t o di smi ss a j ur or because of
an i nf er ence t hat t he j ur or wi l l not be abl e t o deci de t he case
based sol el y on t he evi dence. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at
11
I n Sampson II, t he Fi r st Ci r cui t r ej ect ed t hi s
cat egor i cal appr oach t o bi as, not i ng t hat McDonough saw no
need t o use pi geonhol es of t hi s sor t . 724 F. 3d at 165.
I nst ead, t he Fi r st Ci r cui t endor sed a t ot al i t y of t he
ci r cumst ances appr oach, wher e t he i nqui r y depends on whet her a
r easonabl e j udge, ar med wi t h t he i nf or mat i on t hat t he di shonest
j ur or f ai l ed t o di scl ose and t he r eason behi nd t he j ur or s
di shonest y, woul d concl ude . . . t hat t he j ur or l acked t he
capaci t y and t he wi l l t o deci de t he case based on t he evi dence
( and t hat , t her ef or e, a val i d basi s f or excusal f or cause
exi st ed) . Id. at 165- 66.
41
475.
I n t hi s case, had t he Cour t known al l of t he f act s about
J ur or 162' s per sonal hi st or y and t hat of her son, i t woul d not
have gr ant ed a chal l enge f or cause on t he basi s of i nf er r ed bi as.
Fel l emphasi zes t hat t he j ur or s past sexual abuse r ender ed her
unabl e t o f ai r l y consi der Fel l s own hi st or y of abuse. The
r ecor d does not bear out t hi s cont ent i on, as t he j ur or t est i f i ed
t hat her own sexual abuse was not a si gni f i cant f act or i n her
l i f e. Whi l e t he Cour t does not cr edi t t he j ur or s asser t i ons
t hat she has compl et el y f or got t en about her chi l dhood t r auma,
not hi ng i n her t est i mony suggest s t hat she was unabl e t o be
i mpar t i al when vi ewi ng Fel l s own chi l dhood exper i ence. And
whi l e J ur or 162 connect ed her exper i ence t o Fel l s i n her wr i t t en
decl ar at i on, she r epeat edl y assur ed t he Cour t dur i ng voi r di r e
t hat she coul d consi der mi t i gat i on.
I n Torres, t he Second Ci r cui t st at ed t hat a t r i al j udge may
i nqui r e about a j ur or s par t i al i t y, and when det er mi ni ng i nf er r ed
bi as mi ght be per suaded by t he f or ce of t he j ur or s assur ance[ s]
. . . . 128 F. 3d at 47 n. 12. I n t hi s case, when t he
pr osecut i on asked J ur or 162 i f she coul d l i st en t o var i ous
mi t i gat i ng f act or s and keep an open mi nd, she r epl i ed,
Cer t ai nl y. J ur or Voi r Di r e 9 at 129- 30. Def ense counsel
si mi l ar l y asked her whet her her exper i ences wi t h her son i n any
way coul d af f ect your abi l i t y t o consi der t hat as one of t he
42
mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ances. Id. at 136. J ur or 162 r epl i ed t hat
i t was a har d quest i on, but i ndi cat ed t hat based upon her son s
exper i ence, she bel i eved r ehabi l i t at i on was possi bl e. Id. When
t he Cour t asked J ur or 162 at voi r di r e what f act or s mi ght hel p
her make her deci si on, she made cl ear t hat mi t i gat i ng
ci r cumst ances woul d pl ay a f undament al r ol e i n her deci si on-
maki ng pr ocess: Fi r st of al l t he r eason . . . [ t ] he
psychol ogi cal r eason about why he woul d have done i t . The
mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ances, you know. I woul d have t o hear t he
whol e - . Id. at 121. The pr osecut i on asked J ur or 162 whet her
she woul d be abl e t o consi der t he deat h penal t y, and t he j ur or
r esponded t hat she woul d have t o know al l t he mi t i gat i ng
ci r cumst ances. Id. at 127. Def ense counsel cor r espondi ngl y
asked J ur or 162 i f she coul d consi der a l i f e sent ence, and her
r esponse was consi st ent wi t h what she t ol d bot h t he Cour t and t he
pr osecut or :
Wel l , not hear i ng what t he evi dence i s, I coul d I
coul d make a deci si on ei t her way . . . I guess t hat s
t he easi est way t o answer t hat . But I haven t hear d
any evi dence yet , so . . . . I t hi nk what you ar e
aski ng me, i f I amcapabl e of maki ng a deci si on f or
l i f e i n pr i son or f or t he deat h penal t y, wi t hout
hear i ng evi dence? . . . I woul d be capabl e of ei t her
one, but nat ur al l y I woul d have t o hear al l t he
mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ances f i r st .
Id. at 135- 36.
The Cour t now wei ghs t hese r esponses agai nst t he i nf or mat i on
t hat Fel l s at t or neys have gat her ed si nce t r i al . I n addi t i on t o
43
t he j ur or s sexual abuse sever al decades ago, t he Cour t consi der s
t he j ur or s hi st or y of physi cal abuse by Ms. Tat r o, her own
subst ance abuse, and her son s l i f e hi st or y. When a j ur or has
l i f e exper i ences t hat cor r espond wi t h evi dence pr esent ed dur i ng
t r i al , t hat congr uence r ai ses obvi ous concer ns about t he j ur or s
possi bl e bi as. Sampson II, 724 F. 3d at 167 ( ci t i ng Torres, 128
F. 3d at 47- 48) ; see Burton v. Johnson, 948 F. 2d 1150, 1158- 59
( 10t h Ci r . 1991) ) . Whi l e i n some cases a cour t coul d r easonabl y
concl ude t hat t he j ur or may have enor mous di f f i cul t y separ at i ng
her own l i f e exper i ences f r omevi dence i n t he case, Sampson II,
724 F. 3d at 167, t her e i s l i t t l e evi dence her e t o j ust i f y such a
concer n.
Unl i ke t he j ur or i n Sampson, J ur or 162 has not demonst r at ed
di st r ess about her own f ami l y hi st or y, or about i ssues of
cr i mi nal i t y and subst ance abuse gener al l y. I n f act , her
quest i onnai r e r esponses suggest not onl y t hat she i s wi l l i ng t o
di scl ose her son s cr i mi nal hi st or y, but t hat she i s pr oud of hi s
r ecover y and r ehabi l i t at i on. Gi ven t he j ur or s per cept i on of her
own f ami l y s successes, and her i nsi st ence upon her abi l i t y t o be
i mpar t i al , t he Cour t woul d not have gr ant ed a hypot het i cal
chal l enge f or cause i n t hi s i nst ance. Cf. United States v.
Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d 432, 442 ( S. D. N. Y. 2004) ( I f anyt hi ng,
a pr ospect i ve j ur or wi t h a f ami l y member who had been convi ct ed
of a cr i me woul d mor e l i kel y be consi der ed bi ased i n favor of
44
cr i mi nal def endant s. ) .
Whi l e t he Cour t f i nds t hat Fel l has not shown ei t her
di shonest y or val i d gr ounds f or a chal l enge f or cause, t her e i s
aut hor i t y f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat wher e t he McDonough st andar d
i s not sat i sf i ed, a new t r i al may st i l l be or der ed i f t he
def endant s can show bi as. See, e.g., Jones v. Cooper, 311 F. 3d
306, 310 ( 4t h Ci r . 2002) ( The McDonough t est i s not t he
excl usi ve t est f or det er mi ni ng whet her a new t r i al i s war r ant ed:
a showi ng t hat a j ur or was act ual l y bi ased, r egar dl ess of whet her
t he j ur or was t r ut hf ul or decei t f ul , can al so ent i t l e a def endant
t o a new t r i al . ) ; Skaggs v. Otis Elevator Co., 164 F. 3d 511, 516
( 10t h Ci r . 1998) ( The advent of t he [ McDonough] t est di d not
el i mi nat e a l i t i gant s br oader hi st or i c r i ght t o pr ove act ual or
i mpl i ed j ur or bi as. ) . I n McDonough i t sel f , J ust i ces Bl ackmun,
St evens and O Connor concur r ed separ at el y t o cl ar i f y t hat j ur or
par t i al i t y coul d st i l l be pr oven by showi ng act ual or i mpl i ed
bi as. Sampson I, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 175 ( ci t i ng McDonough, 464
U. S. at 556) . As J ust i ce Bl ackmun wr ot e,
[ We] under st and t he Cour t s hol di ng not t o f or ecl ose
t he nor mal avenue f or r el i ef avai l abl e t o a par t y who
i s asser t i ng t hat he di d not have t he benef i t of an
i mpar t i al j ur y. Thus, r egar dl ess of whet her a j ur or ' s
answer i s honest or di shonest , i t r emai ns wi t hi n a
t r i al cour t s opt i on, i n det er mi ni ng whet her a j ur y was
bi ased, t o or der a post - t r i al hear i ng at whi ch t he
movant has t he oppor t uni t y t o demonst r at e act ual bi as
or , i n except i onal ci r cumst ances, t hat t he f act s ar e
such t hat bi as i s t o be i nf er r ed.
McDonough, 464 U. S. at 556 ( Bl ackmun, J . , concur r i ng) .
45
As expl ai ned i n t he chal l enge f or cause anal ysi s, J ur or 162
di d not evi dence t he sor t of bi as t hat woul d j ust i f y gr ant i ng a
new t r i al . Fel l has not shown act ual bi as, as J ur or 162 di d not
admi t par t i al i t y and t he Cour t has not det er mi ned act ual
par t i al i t y based upon t he j ur or s conduct . Nor does J ur or 162' s
si t uat i on pr esent t he sor t of except i onal si t uat i on t hat woul d
gi ve r i se t o a pr esumpt i on of bi as. See Torres, 128 F. 3d at 46
( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on omi t t ed) . Fi nal l y, whi l e t her e
i s no l egal aut hor i t y f or gr ant i ng r el i ef pur el y on t he basi s of
i nf er r ed bi as, J ur or 162' s act i ons i n t hi s case woul d nonet hel ess
f al l shor t of such an i nf er ence.
I n sum, t he r ecor d does not suppor t Fel l s cl ai mf or r el i ef
on t he basi s of J ur or 162' s conduct dur i ng voi r di r e. Whi l e t he
McDonough Cour t hi ghl i ght ed t he i mpor t ance of t he voi r di r e
pr ocess as a guar d agai nst j ur or bi as, i t al so not ed t hat no
t r i al i s per f ect , and t hat counsel has a r esponsi bi l i t y t o obt ai n
r el evant i nf or mat i on f r ompr ospect i ve j ur or s. 464 U. S. at 554-
55. J ur or 162 compl et ed t wo quest i onnai r es, one of whi ch
cont ai ned over 70 quest i ons. Her answer s di scl osed i nf or mat i on
t hat shoul d have, and i n f act di d, pr ompt f ur t her quest i oni ng by
counsel dur i ng voi r di r e. That quest i oni ng was br i ef , and as
not ed above, counsel s per f or mance i n t hat r egar d may suppor t a
cl ai mof i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel .
Whi l e J ur or 162' s r esponses dur i ng voi r di r e and her
46
t est i mony i n t hi s post - convi ct i on pr oceedi ng pr esent cl ose
quest i ons, t he Cour t ul t i mat el y f i nds t hat Fel l has f ai l ed t o
show suf f i ci ent mi sconduct by J ur or 162 t o war r ant habeas cor pus
r el i ef . The Cour t al so not es t hat t he Second Ci r cui t has never
f ound r eason t o over t ur n a ver di ct on t he basi s of j ur or
nondi scl osur e under McDonough, and onl y once . . . has r emanded
f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t he mat t er . Stewart, 433 F. 3d at
303.
12
Her e, t he Cour t has hel d evi dent i ar y hear i ngs and has
consi der ed t he par t i es submi ssi ons. For t he r easons set f or t h
above, Fel l i s not ent i t l ed t o r el i ef on t he basi s of J ur or 162' s
nondi scl osur es, and hi s amended mot i on i n t hi s r egar d i s DENI ED.
B. Juror 143
J ur or 143 i s al l eged t o have engaged i n a br oad r ange of
mi sconduct , i ncl udi ng: t r avel i ng t o Rut l and t o vi ew t he cr i me
scenes dur i ng t r i al ; i nf or mi ng ot her j ur or s of hi s ext r a- r ecor d
obser vat i ons; speaki ng wi t h a t hi r d par t y about t he case dur i ng
t r i al ; l yi ng about hi s act i ons when ser vi ng as a j ur or ; l yi ng
dur i ng voi r di r e; coer ci ng anot her j ur or i nt o changi ng her vot e;
and agai n l yi ng t o t he Cour t i n t hi s post - convi ct i on pr oceedi ng.
12
One di st r i ct cour t r ecent l y gr ant ed a new t r i al on t he basi s
of a j ur or s nondi scl osur e, but t he f act s i n t hat case ar e r eadi l y
di st i ngui shabl e. See Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 445. I n
Daugerdas, t he j ur or conf essed t hat she pur posef ul l y l i ed and omi t t ed
mat er i al i nf or mat i on i n her voi r di r e t est i mony t o make her sel f mor e
mar ket abl e as a j ur or . Id. at 469. The cour t f ound t hat t he
r esponses wer e pr emedi t at ed and del i ber at e, and woul d have pr ovi ded
a val i d basi s f or a chal l enge f or cause. Id.
47
Fel l cl ai ms t hat J ur or 143' s act i ons demonst r at e t he j ur or s bi as
and t ai nt ed t he ent i r e t r i al .
1. Exposure To Extra-Record Information
The Cour t f i r st addr esses Fel l s cl ai mt hat J ur or 143
engaged i n a mi d- t r i al i nvest i gat i on of t he cr i me scenes. The
Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t has l ong hel d t hat i t i s t he l aw s
obj ect i ve t o guar d j eal ousl y t he sanct i t y of t he j ur y s r i ght t o
oper at e as f r eel y as possi bl e f r omout si de unaut hor i zed
i nt r usi ons pur posef ul l y made. Remmer v. United States, 350 U. S.
377, 382 ( 1956) . Accor di ngl y, t he i nt r oduct i on of pr ej udi ci al
ext r aneous i nf l uences i nt o t he j ur y r oomconst i t ut es mi sconduct
whi ch may r esul t i n t he r ever sal of a convi ct i on. Parker v.
Gladden, 385 U. S. 363, 36465 ( 1966) . The Supr eme Cour t has al so
acknowl edged t hat unaut hor i zed conduct dur i ng a t r i al can
i nvol ve[ ] such a pr obabi l i t y t hat pr ej udi ce wi l l r esul t t hat i t
i s deemed i nher ent l y l acki ng i n due pr ocess. Id. ( quot i ng
Estes v. State of Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 542- 43 ( 1965) ) .
I n December 2010, dur i ng an i nt er vi ew conduct ed by Fel l s
post - convi ct i on counsel , J ur or 143 r eveal ed t hat i n t he mi dst of
t r i al he dr ove t o Rut l and and vi ewed t he house and nei ghbor hood
wher e Debr a Fel l and Char l es Conway wer e mur der ed. He al so
obser ved t he Pr i ce Chopper gr ocer y st or e wher e Ter esca Ki ng was
ki dnapped. Af t er t he i nt er vi ew, J ur or 143 si gned a handwr i t t en,
t hi r t een- par agr aph swor n decl ar at i on ( t he swor n decl ar at i on)
48
conf i r mi ng hi s i nt er vi ew st at ement s. The swor n decl ar at i on
det ai l ed some of J ur or 143' s obser vat i ons whi l e i n Rut l and and
hi s subsequent comment s t o f el l ow j ur or s:
We di scussed t he evi dence, l i ke t he r ock, t he shot gun,
t he phot os of Mr s. Ki ng, and t he t r i p t o Rut l and dur i ng
t he t r i al when I l ooked at t he mot her s house on
Robbi ns St r eet and t he Pr i ce Chopper . The mot her s
nei ghbor hood wasn t gr eat , but i t was okay. The house
was decent . She was j ust t r yi ng t o l i ve her l i f e. I
t ol d t hemabout t he St ewar t s dumpst er next t o Pr i ce
Chopper wher e I t hi nk Fel l t hr ew t he kni f e i nt o t he
dumpst er i n t he par ki ng l ot . . . . The l i ght i ng at
t he Pr i ce Chopper i n Rut l and was weak. At t he t i me I
wor ked at t he Pr i ce Chopper i n Bar r e- Ber l i n and t he
par ki ng l ot was al so unsaf e because i t was poor l y l i t .

Fel l Hr g Ex. 1, 5.
13

J ur or 143 was subsequent l y cal l ed t o t est i f y i n t hi s post -
convi ct i on pr oceedi ng. Pr i or t o hi s August 2013 t est i mony, an
FBI agent pr ovi ded J ur or 143 wi t h a copy of t he swor n decl ar at i on
and spoke wi t h t he j ur or about hi s st at ement s. Ther e was al so
pr ess cover age concer ni ng J ur or 143' s al l eged mi sconduct .
14
When
Fel l s at t or neys t r i ed t o speak wi t h J ur or 143 at hi s home
13
The gover nment has obj ect ed t o t he admi ssi on of t he swor n
decl ar at i on, ci t i ng Fed. R. Evi d. 606. Rul e 606( b) ( 1) pr ovi des t hat
a j ur or may not t est i f y about any st at ement made or i nci dent t hat
occur r ed dur i ng t he j ur y s del i ber at i ons; t he ef f ect of anyt hi ng on
t hat j ur or s or anot her j ur or s vot e; or any j ur or s ment al pr ocesses
concer ni ng t he ver di ct or i ndi ct ment . Fed. R. Ci v. P. 606( b) ( 1) .
Under Rul e 606( b) ( 2) , however , a j ur or may t est i f y about whet her
ext r aneous pr ej udi ci al i nf or mat i on was i mpr oper l y br ought t o t he
j ur y s at t ent i on. Fed. R. Evi d. 606( b) ( 2) . Accor di ngl y, Rul e 606
al l ows t he Cour t t o consi der whet her ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on was
br ought t o t he Fel l j ur y s at t ent i on, and t he Cour t wi l l consi der
J ur or 143' s swor n st at ement f or t hat pur pose.
14
Br ent Cur t i s, Fell Appeals Murder Conviction Again, Rut l and
Her al d, Febr uar y 18, 2013.
49
shor t l y bef or e t he hear i ng, he r ef used t o speak wi t h t hem.
I n hi s t est i mony bef or e t he Cour t , J ur or 143 di savowed t he
swor n decl ar at i on and st at ed unequi vocal l y t hat he di d not go t o
Rut l and or any pl ace of concer n f or t hi s case dur i ng t r i al .
Aug. 15, 2013 Hr g Tr . at 44. When quer i ed about hi s st at ement
t hat Debr a Fel l s nei ghbor hood wasn t gr eat but i t was okay,
J ur or 143 expl ai ned t hat [ t ] hi s was based on my vi si t back i n
2010, pr obabl y Sept ember - i sh. I was on my mot or cycl e. Id. at
51. Ref er ences i n t he swor n decl ar at i on t o t he l i ght i ng at t he
Pr i ce Chopper wer e, he cont ended, based upon t est i mony pr esent ed
at Fel l s t r i al i n 2005.
J ur or 143 t est i f i ed t hat when t he t wo Fel l at t or neys came t o
hi s home t o speak wi t h hi mi n December 2010, he was under t he
i mpr essi on t hat t hey wer e r epr esent at i ves of t he Cour t . Whi l e
t her e i s no evi dence t hat t he j ur or was mi sl ed i n t hi s r egar d,
t hi s f act adds t o t he cr edi bi l i t y of hi s st at ement s dur i ng t he
i nt er vi ew. The j ur or al so t est i f i ed t hat he had been dr i nki ng a
f ew beer s and was on a bender , but acknowl edged t hat he met
wi t h t he at t or neys vol unt ar i l y and spoke wi t h t hemat l engt h.
When t he at t or neys r et ur ned t he f ol l owi ng day wi t h a dr af t
of t he swor n decl ar at i on, J ur or 143 was gi ven an oppor t uni t y t o
r evi ew i t , i ni t i al each par agr aph as r ead, and make necessar y
cor r ect i ons pr i or t o si gni ng. I n f act , changes and addi t i ons
wer e made at t he j ur or s r equest . J ur or 143 t est i f i ed t hat he
50
r evi ewed t he decl ar at i on onl y br i ef l y, and t hat he f el t pr essur ed
as he di d so. Id. at 83.
J ur or 143' s t est i mony i n August 2013, and par t i cul ar l y hi s
deni al of a mi d- t r i al cr i me scene vi si t , was di r ect l y
cont r adi ct ed by mul t i pl e subsequent wi t nesses. On Mar ch 18,
2014, t he Cour t f i r st hear d t est i mony f r omJ ur or 143' s f or mer
gi r l f r i end, Kaul ene Kel sey. Ms. Kel sey t est i f i ed t hat she gr ew
up wi t h J ur or 143, dat ed hi mi n t he ear l y 1980s, and st ar t i ng
dat i ng hi magai n i n 2002. I n t he summer of 2002, she moved f r om
Connect i cut t o Ver mont t o l i ve wi t h hi m. She and J ur or 143 wer e
i n a r el at i onshi p and l i vi ng t oget her t hr oughout t he dur at i on of
t he Fel l t r i al .
Ms. Kel sey t est i f i ed t hat whi l e J ur or 143 was ser vi ng as a
Fel l j ur or , she accompani ed hi mon a t r i p t o Rut l and t o vi ew t he
cr i me scenes. The t r i p or i gi nat ed at J ur or 143' s home i n
Nor t hf i el d, Ver mont , and t oget her t hey dr ove [ p] r obabl y an hour
t o an hour and a hal f t o Rut l and. Mar . 18, 2014 Hr g Tr . at 24.
Ms. Kel sey t est i f i ed t hat [ i ] t was [ J ur or 143' s] i dea t o t ake
t he t r i p because [ h] e want ed t o go t o Rut l and t o see f or
hi msel f , vi si t t he cr i me scenes and vi si t t he ar ea hi msel f . Id.
at 23.
Accor di ng t o her t est i mony, Ms. Kel sey and J ur or 143 f i r st
vi ewed t he home wher e Debr a Fel l and Char l es Conway wer e
mur der ed, as wel l as t he sur r oundi ng nei ghbor hood. Ms. Kel sey
51
knew t hat t hese ar eas wer e r el evant t o t he t r i al because J ur or
143 t ol d her whi ch bui l di ng was Debr a Fel l s home. J ur or 143
al so t ol d her t hat t he nei ghbor hood was not what he was
expect i ng, based upon t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al .
COUNSEL: Di d J ur or 143 make any comment s t o you about t he
nei ghbor hood sur r oundi ng t he house?
KELSEY: He di d.
COUNSEL: What di d he say?
. . .
KELSEY: He sai d he made not e t hat t he house di d not l ook
as he expect ed i t t o be; t hat he bel i eved t hat
Donal d gr ew up i n l ess of a nei ghbor hood, a l ess
-
COURT: I msor r y, I coul dn t qui t e hear you.
KELSEY: He bel i eved t hat - t hat t he house we wer e l ooki ng
at was mor e of a mi ddl e cl ass- t ype house, and
t hat s not how he per cei ved Donal d Fel l s
upbr i ngi ng t o be.
COUNSEL: Di d he say why he - why he was expect i ng
somet hi ng di f f er ent ?
KELSEY: He sai d t hat - yes, he sai d t hat he expect ed t o
j ust see l ess of a house t han Donal d por t r ayed
t hat he was br ought up i n wi t hout par ent s and
wi t hout super vi si on and wi t h dr ugs and al cohol .
COUNSEL: What , i f anyt hi ng, when he was maki ng t hi s comment
t o you, di d he say about evi dence t hat was
i nt r oduced at Donal d Fel l s t r i al ?
KELSEY: Um, not speci f i cal l y. J ust t hat t hat was t he
i mpr essi on he had, t hat he was sur pr i sed t o see
t hat t he house was i n a hal f way decent
nei ghbor hood.
Id. at 28- 29.
52
Ms. Kel sey t est i f i ed t hat she and J ur or 143 t hen pr oceeded
t o t he Pr i ce Chopper wher e Ter esca Ki ng was ki dnapped. When t hey
ar r i ved at t he Pr i ce Chopper , [ i ] t was get t i ng dar k, j ust about
dar k, and J ur or 143 not ed t hat i t was not wel l l i t . Id. at 31.
COUNSEL: When you wer e at t he Pr i ce Chopper , di d J ur or 143
make any comment s t o you at t hat poi nt ?
KELSEY: Yes.
COUNSEL: What di d he say?
KELSEY: He f i r st not ed t hat i t di dn t l ook ver y wel l l i t
i n t he par ki ng l ot , and he t hen act - - was showi ng
me t he ar ea t hat he t hought t hat - wher e t he
cr i me scene was and how t hi ngs t ook pl ace i n t he
par ki ng l ot .
COUNSEL: Di d he say anyt hi ng el se t o you about t hat ?
KELSEY: He - j ust how - agai n, how t hi ngs mi ght have
happened, how t he - t hey mi ght have appr oached
t he car wher e Ter r y was abduct ed.
Id. at 31.
Counsel asked Ms. Kel sey whet her she had any opi ni on at t he
t i me about whet her i t was okay f or [ J ur or 143] t o be t her e.
Id. at 32- 33. She r esponded t hat she asked J ur or 143
speci f i cal l y shoul d he be her e, t hat I di dn t - i t di dn t seem
t o me l i ke t hi s i s somet hi ng t hat he shoul d be doi ng. Id. at
33. J ur or 143 r epor t edl y r esponded t hat he want ed t o see t hi ngs
f or hi msel f , and t hat nobody knows he i s t her e so i t di dn t make
any di f f er ence. Id.
On cr oss- exami nat i on by t he gover nment , Ms. Kel sey conf i r med
her bel i ef t hat t he t r i p was dur i ng t he Fel l t r i al , and t hat
53
bei ng t her e wi t h J ur or 143 di dn t f eel r i ght . Id. at 40. She
al so r ei t er at ed t hat , when she asked J ur or 143 about t he
pr opr i et y of t he t r i p, hi s r esponse was, I can do what I want t o
do. I need t o see t hi s f or mysel f . Id. at 43.
The Cour t f ol l owed up wi t h i t s own quest i oni ng about t he
t i mi ng of t he t r i p:
COURT: J ust i n your own wor ds, t el l me how you know t hat
t hi s t r i p was dur i ng t he t r i al .
KELSEY: Agai n, I di dn t f eel r i ght about bei ng t her e
because I knew - I j ust asked - I r emember
aski ng hi m, l i ke, you shoul dn t - Shoul d we be
her e? Ar e you supposed t o be her e whi l e you ar e a
j ur or on a case? And he sai d, Nobody - nobody s
her e. Nobody can see us. I need t o see t hi s f or
mysel f .
Id. at 44- 45. Ms. Kel sey al so t est i f i ed t hat her r el at i onshi p
wi t h J ur or 143 ended acr i moni ousl y shor t l y af t er t he Fel l t r i al ,
id. at 40- 41, as evi denced i n par t by a Sept ember 2005 abuse
pr event i on or der ser ved upon J ur or 143. Fel l Hr g Ex. 37.
The Cour t next hear d t est i mony f r omJ ani ce DeGoosh. Ms.
DeGoosh met J ur or 143 i n Mar ch of 2005, and t he r el at i onshi p
became r omant i c i n mi d- t o- l at e August of t hat year . Ms. DeGoosh
t est i f i ed t hat i n t he summer of 2005, J ur or 143 i nf or med her t hat
he was goi ng t o go on a f i el d t r i p t o do some i nvest i gat i ng of
hi s own. Id. 50. Ms. DeGoosh r epor t edl y had concer ns about
t he t r i p, as i t seemed t o her unet hi cal t o go on hi s own t o
check out t he scene. Id. at 51- 52. As she expl ai ned i n her
t est i mony, i t was her under st andi ng t hat as a j ur or , you ar e not
54
supposed t o cl oud your t hought s wi t h out si de i nf or mat i on, and t o
me t hat f eel s l i ke out si de i nf or mat i on. Id. at 55. Al t hough
Ms. DeGoosh was i ni t i al l y uncer t ai n i n her t est i mony about t he
pr eci se t i mi ng of J ur or 143' s t r i p, she event ual l y concl uded t hat
t he t r i p must have t aken pl ace i n t he mi dst of t he Fel l t r i al
based upon her di scomf or t wi t h J ur or 143 t r yi ng t o obt ai n
i nf or mat i on t hat was not gi ven i n t he cour t . Id.
Fel l s counsel al so cal l ed as a wi t ness At t or ney Zl oczower ,
one of t he at t or neys who i nt er vi ewed J ur or 143 at hi s home and
subsequent l y dr af t ed t he j ur or s swor n decl ar at i on. At t or ney
Zl oczower , f or mer l y an associ at e wi t h Cl ear y Got t l i eb St een &
Hami l t on ( Cl ear y Got t l i eb) t he l aw f i r mr epr esent i ng Fel l i n
t hi s pr oceedi ng i s cur r ent l y empl oyed at a not - f or - pr of i t
or gani zat i on i n New Yor k Ci t y. Not wi t hst andi ng her past i nt er est
i n t he out come of Fel l s post - convi ct i on pr oceedi ng, t he Cour t
f ound t hi s wi t ness t o be hi ghl y cr edi bl e.
At t or ney Zl oczower t est i f i ed t hat when she and her col l eague
f r omCl ear y Got t l i eb f i r st met J ur or 143 at hi s home, she
expl ai ned t o t he j ur or t hat t hey wer e at t or neys appoi nt ed by t he
Cour t t o r epr esent Mr . Fel l . J ur or 143 agr eed t o speak wi t h
t hem, and t he i nt er vi ew t ook bet ween t wo and t hr ee hour s. I n t he
cour se of t he i nt er vi ew, t he at t or neys asked J ur or 143 what he
had consi der ed when maki ng hi s det er mi nat i ons at t r i al . I t was
i n r esponse t o t hi s quest i on t hat he r eveal ed hi s t r i p t o
55
Rut l and.
COUNSEL: And what di d he t el l you, i f anyt hi ng, about t hi s
dr i ve t o t he scene i n Rut l and?
WI TNESS: He dr ove t her e and sai d t hat he went t her e f or t he
speci f i c r eason of l ooki ng at t he nei ghbor hood and
t he st r eet t hat Mi ss Fel l l i ved i n. He want ed t o
know whet her i t was r eal l y t hat bad. He al so
want ed t o t ake a l ook at t he Pr i ce Chopper .
Id. at 62.
I n r esponse t o J ur or 143' s t est i mony t hat he had been
dr i nki ng pr i or t o t he i nt er vi ew, At t or ney Zl oczower t est i f i ed
t hat he was not dr unk, but t hat he di d have a scent of al cohol on
hi s br eat h. Id. at 64, 107. At t he concl usi on of t he i nt er vi ew,
she asked i f he woul d be wi l l i ng t o si gn a st at ement , t o whi ch
J ur or 143 r epl i ed t hat he was get t i ng t i r ed and r equest ed t hat
she and her col l eague r et ur n t he f ol l owi ng day.
That next day, a Sunday, J ur or 143 r et ur ned f r omchur ch and
l ef t a message f or At t or ney Zl oczower at her wor k phone number ,
aski ng t hat t he at t or neys come t o hi s home soon so t hat he coul d
t hen at t end hi s gr andmot her s bi r t hday par t y. When t he at t or neys
ar r i ved, t hey engaged i n smal l t al k and of f er ed J ur or 143 t he
decl ar at i on f or hi s r evi ew. At t or ney Zl oczower deni ed t hat she
or her col l eague appl i ed any pr essur e, t est i f yi ng t hat t hey sat
appr oxi mat el y seven f eet away f r omt he j ur or and f ocused
pr i mar i l y on a t el evi sed f oot bal l game whi l e t he j ur or r evi ewed
hi s decl ar at i on. She al so t est i f i ed t hat i t was t he j ur or s i dea
t o pl ace hi s i ni t i al s next t o each par agr aph, and t hat she di d
56
not smel l any al cohol on hi mat t hat t i me.
Wi t h r espect t o par agr aph f i ve of t he swor n decl ar at i on,
cont ai ni ng t he st at ement s about t he mi d- t r i al t r i p t o Rut l and and
J ur or 143' s subsequent di scussi ons wi t h hi s f el l ow j ur or s,
At t or ney Zl oczower t est i f i ed t hat t he j ur or had no r eser vat i ons
about t hi s par agr aph pr i or t o si gni ng t he decl ar at i on.
15
She
al so conf i r med t hat J ur or 143 speci f i cal l y t ol d her he had
di scussed hi s t r i p t o Rut l and wi t h hi s f el l ow j ur or s dur i ng j ur y
del i ber at i ons. Id. at 74.
I n r esponse t o Fel l s wi t nesses, t he gover nment cal l ed as a
wi t ness Speci al Agent Mi chel l e Del pha of t he FBI . Agent Del pha
has been wor ki ng on t he Fel l case si nce 2000, when Ki ng s car was
f i r st l ocat ed i n Ar kansas. Not wi t hst andi ng her r ol e i n t he
gover nment s case, t he Cour t al so f ound Agent Del pha s t est i mony
t o be cr edi bl e.
Agent Del pha i nt er vi ewed Kaul ene Kel sey t wi ce, on November
25, 2013 i n per son, and on Mar ch 4, 2014 vi a t el ephone. Ms.
Kel sey r epor t edl y t ol d Agent Del pha t hat her t r i p t o Rut l and wi t h
J ur or 143 was not i ni t i al l y i nt ended t o be i nvest i gat or y, but
r at her t hat she and t he j ur or wer e mer el y out f or a r i de, and
15
The j ur or di d have r eser vat i ons about some por t i ons of t he
swor n decl ar at i on, and expr essed hi s concer ns t o At t or ney Zl oczower .
Speci f i cal l y, and as di scussed mor e f ul l y bel ow, J ur or 143 was
uncer t ai n about hi s st at ement t hat a gun had been br ought i nt o t he
j ur y r oom. The j ur or s hesi t at i on about t he f act of a gun i ndi cat es
t hat he was maki ng an ef f or t t o be t r ut hf ul i n hi s st at ement s.
57
t hey ended up i n Rut l and and t hat t hey - t hey went t o t wo cr i me
scenes: t o t he Pr i ce Chopper , t hr ough t he par ki ng l ot , and t hen
al so t o a r esi dence. Mar . 19, 2014 Hr g Tr . at 212. Ms. Kel sey
al so t ol d Agent Del pha t hat she was f ami l i ar wi t h t he l ocat i ons
of t he cr i mes because of t he medi a r epor t i ng dur i ng t r i al .
Id. at 222.
16
These st at ement s, bot h as t o t he pur pose of t he
t r i p t o Rut l and and Ms. Kel sey s awar eness of medi a cover age at
t he t i me of t r i al , wer e i nconsi st ent wi t h Ms. Kel sey s hear i ng
t est i mony.
On cr oss- exami nat i on, Agent Del pha t est i f i ed t hat she asked
Ms. Kel sey r epeat edl y whet her t he t r i p t o Rut l and t ook pl ace
dur i ng t he Fel l t r i al . Ms. Kel sey r epor t edl y conf i r med t hat t he
t r i p di d occur dur i ng t r i al , and t hat once i n Rut l and, i t was
J ur or 143' s i dea t o vi si t t he cr i me scenes.
COUNSEL: And [ Ms. Kel sey] sai d i t t o you, t hat she was
cer t ai n [ t he t r i p t ook pl ace dur i ng t r i al ] because
she had t he gut r eact i on t hat t he j ur or shoul dn t
be doi ng t hi s at t he t i me t hey wer e l ooki ng at t he
si t es, cor r ect ?
DELPHA: Cor r ect .
COUNSEL: And she f ur t her t ol d you t hat when t hey wer e goi ng
t o t he cr i me scene dur i ng t he t i me of t r i al , t hat
t he j ur or sai d t o - t hat she asked t he j ur or why
t hey wer e l ooki ng at t he si t es, cor r ect ?
DELPHA: Cor r ect .
16
At t or ney Zl oczower t est i f i ed yes when asked whet her J ur or
143 had t ol d her i n 2005 t hat hi s gi r l f r i end wi t h whomhe l i ved
dur i ng t he t r i al col l ect ed news cl i ppi ngs and t aped t el evi sed cover age
of t he t r i al [ . ] Mar . 18, 2014 Hr g Tr . at 109.
58
COUNSEL: And when she asked t he j ur or why t hey wer e l ooki ng
at t he si t es, t he j ur or t ol d her - and dur i ng
t hi s t r i p at t he t i me of t r i al - t hat he j ust
want ed t o check t hi ngs out , cor r ect ?
DELPHA: Cor r ect .
Id. at 229.
Based upon t he t est i mony of t hese sever al wi t nesses, t he
Cour t f i nds t hat J ur or 143' s deni al of hi s mi d- t r i al
i nvest i gat i on was not cr edi bl e. See Gray v. Hutto, 648 F. 2d 210,
211 ( 4t h Ci r . 1981) ( Wi t h t he mani f est l y st r ong pr essur es on t he
j ur or t o excul pat e her sel f f r oma qui t e unt enabl e posi t i on, her
sel f - ser vi ng st at ement s shoul d not count f or much. ) . Ms. Kel sey
and Ms. DeGoosh each t est i f i ed t hat J ur or 143 vi ewed t he cr i me
scenes i n Rut l and dur i ng t r i al i n 2005. Whi l e Ms. Kel sey s
account was count er ed i n some r espect s by Agent Del pha s
t est i mony, her t est i mony about t he f act of t he t r i p, and J ur or
143' s i nt ent t o vi ew t he cr i me scenes, was uncont r over t ed. Ms.
DeGoosh conf i r med t hat J ur or 143 pl anned t o vi si t t he cr i me
scenes dur i ng t r i al f or t he pur pose of i nvest i gat i on. Ms.
Kel sey s t est i mony about J ur or 143' s obser vat i ons was al so
uncont est ed, and was consi st ent wi t h t he j ur or s swor n
decl ar at i on.
The Cour t al so f i nds t hat J ur or 143' s st at ement s i n hi s
swor n decl ar at i on wi t h r espect t o hi s t r i p t o Rut l and, and hi s
subsequent di scl osur es t o ot her j ur or s, wer e t r ut hf ul . The
evi dence suggest s t hat , t hr ough no wr ongdoi ng by t he Cl ear y
59
Got t l i eb at t or neys, J ur or 143 may have mi sunder st ood wi t h whomhe
was speaki ng at t he t i me of t he i nt er vi ew, and was t hus wi l l i ng
t o speak t r ut hf ul l y. Mor eover , t he decl ar at i on was not onl y
si gned and swor n, but t he j ur or i ndependent l y i ni t i al ed each
par agr aph as r ead. At t or ney Zl oczower t est i f i ed t hat she
accur at el y r ecor ded hi s st at ement s, and t hat when J ur or 143 r ead
t hr ough and si gned t he decl ar at i on, t her e was no evi dence of
al cohol or ot her i mpai r ment . Fur t her mor e, t he swor n decl ar at i on
conf or ms gener al l y wi t h Ms. Kel sey s t est i mony about t he j ur or s
r eact i ons when he t our ed bot h t he Robbi ns St r eet nei ghbor hood and
t he Pr i ce Chopper . The Cour t t her ef or e f i nds t hat J ur or 143 was
not cr edi bl e when he deni ed hi s 2005 t r i p t o Rut l and, t hat t he
j ur or di d, i n f act , conduct hi s own i nvest i gat i on dur i ng t r i al ,
and t hat t he ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on gai ned f r omt hat
i nvest i gat i on was, i n t he vi ew of t hi s j ur or , not consi st ent wi t h
t he evi dence i nt r oduced at t r i al .
17

The gover nment s post - hear i ng memor andumdoes not ser i ousl y
cont est whet her J ur or 143' s i nvest i gat i on t ook pl ace,
char act er i zi ng hi s f al se t est i mony i n August 2013 as i ndi cat i ve
of r egr et and embar r assment af t er an abr upt [ ] r eal i z[ at i on]
17
The Cour t not es t hat whi l e dr i vi ng t hr ough Rut l and J ur or 143
spoke wi t h Ms. Kel sey about t he case. Ms. Kel sey her sel f had
r epor t edl y col l ect ed pr ess cl i ppi ngs and vi deot aped news r epor t s of
t he Fel l t r i al , none of whi ch shoul d have been di scl osed t o a member
of t he j ur y. Gi ven t hei r conver sat i ons whi l e t our i ng t he cr i me
scenes, Ms. Kel sey may have been an addi t i onal sour ce of ext r a- r ecor d
i nf or mat i on.
60
t hat hi s f ool i sh excur si on had been i dent i f i ed as an embar r assi ng
t r ansgr essi on. ECF No. 508 at 20, 25. The gover nment al so
concedes t hat i f J ur or 143 l i ed i n hi s t est i mony, such decei t
woul d be t r oubl i ng. Id. at 20. The gover nment ar gues,
however , t hat i t i s hi ghl y i mpr obabl e t hat anyt hi ng [ J ur or 143]
saw [ dur i ng hi s i nvest i gat i on] pr ej udi ced t he ver di ct . . . .
Id. at 29.
I t i s undi sput ed t hat t he l aw pr esumes pr ej udi ce f r oma
j ur y s exposur e t o ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on. United States v.
Farhane, 634 F. 3d 127, 168 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ng Remmer v.
United States, 347 U. S. 227, 229 ( 1954) ) ; see Greer, 285 F. 3d at
173; Bibbins v. Dalsheim, 21 F. 3d 13, 16 ( 2d Ci r . 1994) ; United
States v. Wiley, 846 F. 2d 150, 157 ( 2d Ci r . 1988) . [ T] hat
pr esumpt i on may be r ebut t ed by a showi ng t hat t he ext r a- r ecor d
i nf or mat i on was har ml ess. Farhane, 634 F. 3d at 168 ( quot i ng
Bibbins, 21 F. 3d at 16) ; see also United States v. Schwarz, 283
F. 3d 76, 99 ( 2d Ci r . 2002) . I f t he pr esumpt i on i s not r ebut t ed,
t he def endant i s ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al . See Remmer, 347 U. S.
at 230; United States ex rel. Owen v. McMann, 435 F. 2d 813, 821
( 2d Ci r . 1970) .
Wher e a j ur or has been exposed t o an ext r aneous i nf l uence
. . . t he cour t must appl y an obj ect i ve t est , assessi ng f or
i t sel f t he l i kel i hood t hat t he i nf l uence woul d af f ect a t ypi cal
j ur or . Greer, 285 F. 3d at 173 ( quot i ng Bibbins, 21 F. 3d at
61
17) ; see also Farhane, 634 F. 3d at 169 ( st at i ng t hat t he i nqui r y
f ocuses on . . . t he nat ur e of t he i nf or mat i on or cont act at
i ssue, and i t s pr obabl e ef f ect on a hypot het i cal aver age j ur y) .
Al t hough [ t ] he cour t may not i nqui r e i nt o t he degr ee upon whi ch
t he ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on was used i n del i ber at i ons and t he
i mpr essi on whi ch j ur or s act ual l y had about i t , Greer, 285 F. 3d
at 173 ( quot i ng United States v. Calbas, 821 F. 2d 887, 897 ( 2d
Ci r . 1987) ) , i t may appr opr i at el y consi der t he ci r cumst ances
sur r oundi ng t he i nt r oduct i on of [ t he] i nf or mat i on i n maki ng [ i t s]
det er mi nat i on. Id. ( quot i ng Calbas, 821 F. 2d at 896 n. 9)
( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) . The t r i al cour t shoul d assess t he
possi bi l i t y of pr ej udi ce by r evi ewi ng t he ent i r e r ecor d,
anal yzi ng t he subst ance of t he ext r i nsi c evi dence, and compar i ng
i t t o t hat i nf or mat i on of whi ch t he j ur or s wer e pr oper l y awar e.
United States v. Weiss, 752 F. 2d 777, 783 ( 2d Ci r . 1985) ( quot i ng
Sher v. Stoughton, 666 F. 2d 791, 794 ( 2d Ci r . 1981) ) .
J ur or 143' s i nvest i gat i on exposed hi mt o i nf or mat i on about
t he physi cal envi r onment i n whi ch Debr a Fel l was l i vi ng and t he
cr i me scenes gener al l y. By t r avel i ng bet ween Robbi ns St r eet and
t he Pr i ce Chopper , J ur or 143 al so vi ewed t he ar ea wher e Fel l and
Lee wal ked pr i or t o abduct i ng Mr s. Ki ng. As di scussed bel ow,
t hat pr eci se r out e was hi ghl i ght ed by t he gover nment as
i ndi cat i ve of Fel l s del i ber at eness and st at e of mi nd. The
evi dence bef or e t he Cour t i ndi cat es t hat what J ur or 143 saw i n
62
Rut l and was i n sever al r espect s i nconsi st ent wi t h t he evi dence
pr esent ed at t r i al , and i n al l r espect s f avor abl e t o t he
gover nment s case.
J ur or 143' s obser vat i ons whi l e i n Rut l and per t ai ned t o t he
gover nment s t hr eshol d cul pabi l i t y f act or s ( each of whi ch
r equi r ed pr oof of i nt ent ) , i t s non- st at ut or y aggr avat i ng f act or s,
and t he def ense t eam s mi t i gat i ng f act or s. When a deat h penal t y
j ur y i s pr esent ed wi t h bot h aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng f act or s,
i t s t ask i s t o wei gh t hose f act or s and det er mi ne whet her a
sent ence of deat h i s war r ant ed. See 18 U. S. C. 3593( c) ( j ur y
must deci de whet her al l t he aggr avat i ng f act or or f act or s f ound
t o exi st suf f i ci ent l y out wei gh al l t he mi t i gat i ng f act or or
f act or s f ound t o exi st t o j ust i f y a sent ence of deat h) . Even i n
t he absence of mi t i gat i ng f act or s, t he j ur y must det er mi ne
whet her t he aggr avat i ng f act or or f act or s al one ar e suf f i ci ent
t o j ust i f y a sent ence of deat h. Id.
The gover nment s non- st at ut or y aggr avat i ng f act or s r el i ed
upon a showi ng of pr emedi t at i on and i nt ent . The f i r st such
aggr avat i ng f act or asked t he j ur y t o f i nd t hat Fel l abduct ed Mr s.
Ki ng i n or der t o f aci l i t at e hi s escape f r omt he ar ea. The
gover nment al so asked t he j ur y t o concl ude t hat Fel l engaged i n
subst ant i al pr emedi t at i on t o commi t t he cr i me of car j acki ng.
The Cour t def i ned pr emedi t at i on f or t he j ur y as t hi nki ng or
del i ber at i ng about somet hi ng and deci di ng whet her t o do i t
63
bef or ehand. Tr i al Tr . Vol . XI I at 150.
The gover nment s evi dence of i nt ent i onal conduct and
pr emedi t at i on f ocused i n par t upon t he r out e t hat Fel l and Lee
f ol l owed af t er t hey l ef t Debr a Fel l s Robbi ns St r eet home. The
gover nment por t r ayed t he r out e as par t of a pr e- concei ved pl an,
descr i bi ng Fel l s pat h as a ni ce r out e down t hr ough t he pl aza
wher e t he Wal mar t and t he Pr i ce Chopper wer e. Tr i al Tr . I V- 1 at
61. The gover nment f ur t her not ed t hat upon hi s ar r est , Fel l was
abl e t o r ecal l t he exact r out e he t ook t o t he dar k Pr i ce Chopper
par ki ng l ot . Id. at 63. The t r i al evi dence pl ot t ed Fel l s r out e
on an aer i al phot ogr aph of downt own Rut l and, and al t hough some
t est i mony was pr esent ed about r esi dent i al and commer ci al ar eas,
t he i mmedi at e physi cal sur r oundi ngs of t he r out e wer e not
document ed i n det ai l .
Fel l s def ense t eamdi sput ed whet her t he gover nment coul d
pr ove beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat Fel l s act i ons wer e
i nt ent i onal . The def ense ar gued t hat t he conf usi on and l evel of
dr i nki ng t hat ni ght r esul t ed i n bad deci si ons t hat wer e not
pl anned and scr i pt ed. Tr i al Tr . Vol . I - 1 at 56; Tr i al Tr . Vol .
I V- 1 at 72- 73. I ndeed, ar gued t he def ense, Fel l was
subst ant i al l y i mpai r ed, t r avel ed an i r r at i onal r out e, and
t oget her wi t h Lee, made a ser i es of unpl anned deci si ons. Those
deci si ons i ncl uded wal ki ng wher e anyone coul d see t hem and
conduct i ng a ki dnappi ng i n a par ki ng l ot t hat was l i t . Id. at
64
75.
Under Remmer and Farhane, t he Cour t must f i r st assume t hat
J ur or 143' s obser vat i ons of t he ar ea wher e Fel l and Lee wal ked
wer e pr ej udi ci al . The gover nment may r ebut t hi s pr esumpt i on by
demonst r at i ng t hat a t ypi cal j ur or woul d not have been i nf l uenced
by t hi s ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on. See Bibbins, 21 F. 3d at 16.
I n ot her wor ds, t he gover nment i s obl i gat ed t o pr ov[ e] t he
negat i ve. United States v. Morrison, 984 F. Supp. 2d 125, 133
( E. D. N. Y. 2013) . Whi l e pr ovi ng a negat i ve i s i nher ent l y
di f f i cul t , t he gover nment s t ask i s f ur t her hi nder ed by J ur or
143' s r ef usal t o admi t t hat he t r avel ed t o t he cr i me scenes
dur i ng t r i al . Because J ur or 143 chose t o l i e under oat h about
hi s act i ons, t he par t i es and t he Cour t cannot ask hi mabout wher e
he went , what he saw, or any of t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng
t he i nt r oduct i on of [ ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on] . Calbas, 821
F. 2d at 896 n. 9; see also Smith, 455 U. S. at 217 n. 7
( det er mi nat i ons made i n Remmer- t ype hear i ngs wi l l f r equent l y
t ur n upon t est i mony of t he j ur or i n quest i on) .
Ms. Kel sey s t est i mony about J ur or 143' s pat h f r omRobbi ns
St r eet t o t he Pr i ce Chopper was i nconcl usi ve, as she t est i f i ed
onl y t hat i t was possi bl e t hey dr ove down an al l ey near t he
house, dr ove al ong t he f r ont si de of t he shoppi ng cent er t o
r each t he Pr i ce Chopper , or dr ove ar ound t he back al l ey of a
shoppi ng cent er t o r each t he Pr i ce Chopper . Mar . 18, 2014 Hr g
65
Tr . at 30- 31.
18
Because J ur or 143 has chosen t o deny hi s act i ons
ent i r el y, t he gover nment cannot pr ove t hat he di d not f ol l ow
Fel l s pat h, and cor r espondi ngl y, t hat hi s ext r a- r ecor d
obser vat i ons of t he ar ea wer e har ml ess. See United States v.
VasquezRuiz, 502 F. 3d 700, 705 ( 7t h Ci r . 2007) ( not i ng t hat
under Remmer i t i s t he pr osecut i on t hat bear s t he r i sk of
uncer t ai nt y) .
Even i f t he gover nment di d not have t he bur den of r ebut t i ng
t he pr esumpt i on of pr ej udi ce, Fel l s evi dence shows t hat J ur or
143' s i nvest i gat i on was not har ml ess. Fel l has i nt r oduced vi deo
evi dence
19
t o show t hat anyone f ol l owi ng hi s wal ki ng r out e woul d
have obt ai ned i nf or mat i on r el evant t o t he gover nment s
aggr avat i ng f act or s. That evi dence shows t hat af t er Fel l and Lee
l ef t t he Robbi ns St r eet home, t hey wal ked t hr ough a r esi dent i al
nei ghbor hood wher e ot her act i vi t y at such an ear l y hour was
unl i kel y. Fel l t hen pr oceeded t hr ough por t i ons of commer ci al
18
When quest i oned about hi s act i ons at t he August 2013 hear i ng,
J ur or 143 di d r ef er ence f ol l owi ng Fel l s r out e on a mot or cycl e, but
t he t i mi ng of t hat event i s not cl ear as t he j ur or i nsi st ed t hat hi s
mot or cycl e t r i p occur r ed i n 2010. Ms. Kel sey t est i f i ed t hat her t r i p
t o Rut l and wi t h t he j ur or was not on a mot or cycl e.
19
The Cour t pr evi ousl y admi t t ed t he vi deo evi dence wi t h t he
pr ovi si on t hat Fel l s br i ef i ng woul d est abl i sh i t s r el evance. The
Cour t now deems t he evi dence r el evant t o Fel l s pr ej udi ce ar gument ,
and Exhi bi t s 38- 41 ar e admi t t ed. The Cour t al so admi t s r el at ed
r ecor ds f r omt he Di st r i ct 1 Envi r onment al Commi ssi on, Exhi bi t s 54- 64,
as r el evant t o t he quest i on of whet her t her e wer e any per mi t t ed
changes t o t he ar ea, i ncl udi ng t he l i ght i ng out si de t he Pr i ce Chopper ,
bet ween 2000 and 2014. The evi dence does not i ndi cat e any mat er i al
changes. Fi nal l y, t he Cour t admi t s Fel l s summar y of t he vi deo
evi dence pr esent ed i n Exhi bi t 65.
66
ar eas wher e, because of t hei r pr eci se r out e, he and Rober t Lee
wer e agai n l ess l i kel y t o be seen. A j ur or vi ewi ng t hose ar eas
woul d t her ef or e have been exposed t o i nf or mat i on beyond t hat
pr esent ed at t r i al , and suppor t i ve of t he gover nment s posi t i on.
The post - convi ct i on r ecor d shows t hat , at a mi ni mum, J ur or
143 t r avel ed bet ween Robbi ns St r eet and t he Pr i ce Chopper i n
Rut l and. Whi l e hi s pr eci se r out e i s unknown, i t i s pl ai n t hat he
vi ewed t he Robbi ns St r eet nei ghbor hood and t he ar ea of Rut l and
l yi ng bet ween Robbi ns St r eet and t he Pr i ce Chopper . Even t hose
l i mi t ed vi ewi ngs of t he r el evant r esi dent i al and commer ci al ar eas
woul d have i nf or med a t ypi cal j ur or about t he nat ur e of Fel l s
r out e beyond t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al and pr ovi ded i nsi ght
i nt o Fel l s abi l i t y t o act i n an i nt ent i onal and pr emedi t at ed
f ashi on.
Fur t her mor e, J ur or 143 made obser vat i ons of t he l i ght i ng at
t he Pr i ce Chopper wher e Ter esca Ki ng was ki dnapped. Those
obser vat i ons t oo wer e r el evant t o t he gover nment s non- st at ut or y
aggr avat i ng f act or s, par t i cul ar l y as t o pr emedi t at i on pr i or t o
t he car j acki ng. At t r i al , t he gover nment ar gued t hat Fel l l ai d
i n wai t i ng i n t he dar kness . . . f or someone j ust l i ke Ter r y
Ki ng. Tr i al Tr . Vol . I - 1 at 18, 19. Dur i ng t he penal t y phase,
t he gover nment asked t he j ur y t o bel i eve t hat Fel l was
i nt ent i onal l y wai t i ng i n t he dar kness, i n t he shadows . . .
[ and] car ef ul l y sel ect ed Ter r y Ki ng as t he per f ect vi ct i m.
67
Tr i al Tr . Vol . XI I at 13. As di scussed pr evi ousl y, t he def ense
count er ed t hat Fel l and Lee wer e t oo i mpai r ed t o engage i n
pl anned act s, and t hat t hey commi t t ed t he ki dnappi ng i n a l i t
par ki ng l ot .
The l i ght i ng evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al i ncl uded dayt i me
phot ogr aphs of t he Pr i ce Chopper s ext er i or , see Gov t Tr i al Ex.
12( a) ( 1) - 12( a) ( 3) , and del i ver y man J oseph Tr apasso s t est i mony
t hat on t he mor ni ng of t he ki dnappi ng i t was possi bl e t o see
pr et t y good out t her e. Tr i al Tr . Vol . I - 1 at 118. Accor di ng t o
Ms. Kel sey, J ur or 143 obser ved t he par ki ng l ot j ust bef or e dar k,
at whi ch t i me he woul d have been abl e t o ascer t ai n whet her t he
l i ght i ng was adequat e. The j ur or concl uded t hat t he l i ght i ng was
poor , and Fel l s vi deo evi dence conf i r ms t hat concl usi on.
I f , as t he gover nment cl ai med, Fel l i nt ent i onal l y sear ched
f or a poor l y- l i t si t e and l ur ked i n t he shadows bef or e
commi t t i ng t he ki dnappi ng, t he l evel of l i ght i ng at t he Pr i ce
Chopper was r el evant t o pr emedi t at i on. Pr ej udi ce i s agai n
pr esumed, as t he gover nment cannot show a l ack of har mf r omJ ur or
143' s i nspect i on of t he par ki ng l ot . Mor eover , J ur or 143' s
per sonal obser vat i ons of t he l i ght i ng wer e har mf ul t o t he
def ense s t heor y of t he case, and a t ypi cal , hypot het i cal j ur or
woul d have been si mi l ar l y af f ect ed by such ext r a- r ecor d evi dence.
As Ms. Kel sey s t est i mony made cl ear , J ur or 143' s mi d- t r i al
i nvest i gat i on al so count er ed Fel l s mi t i gat i on ar gument s. Those
68
ar gument s f ocused heavi l y upon Fel l s upbr i ngi ng i n what t he
def ense descr i bed as an envi r onment of f i l t h, subst ance abuse,
physi cal and sexual abuse, and abandonment .
20
I n suppor t of
t hese mi t i gat i ng f act or s, Fel l s si st er t est i f i ed t hat she and
Donal d gr ew up i n a vi ol ent . . . messy, [ and] di r t y physi cal
envi r onment . Tr i al Tr . Vol . VI I at 87. Of f i cer Chr i st opher
Pur cel l l i kewi se t est i f i ed t hat t he Fel l s house i n Pennsyl vani a
was di shevel ed, wi t h gar bage pi l ed ar ound t he out si de of t he
home and t he i nsi de l i t t er ed wi t h beer cans. Tr i al Tr . Vol . VI I
at 39- 40.
Def ense counsel ar gued at t r i al t hat t he Robbi ns St r eet home
i n Rut l and was si mi l ar l y chaot i c wi t h cans and cans of beer ,
empt y cases of beer . Tr i al Tr . Vol . I V- 1 at 73. Law
enf or cement t est i mony about Robbi ns St r eet conf i r med t hat t he
home was st r ewn wi t h beer cans and di r t y cl ot hes. Tr i al Tr . Vol .
I - 2 at 62, 67, 72. Def ense counsel al so ur ged t he j ur y t o
consi der Debr a Fel l s dai l y i nt oxi cat i on and her cor r upt i ve
i nf l uence on her son. Tr i al Tr . Vol . XI I at 86. Physi cal
evi dence of t he Robbi ns St r eet nei ghbor hood was l i mi t ed t o
pr i mar i l y aer i al phot ogr aphs.
20
Speci f i c mi t i gat i ng f act or s on t he Speci al Ver di ct For m
i ncl uded: Donal d Fel l was sexual l y and physi cal l y abused as a chi l d;
Donal d Fel l s par ent s wer e vi ol ent al cohol i cs who abandoned hi mas a
chi l d; Donal d Fel l began r egul ar l y abusi ng al cohol and dr ugs as a
chi l d; as a chi l d, Donal d Fel l was f or ced t o wi t ness f ami l y vi ol ence,
i ncl udi ng seei ng hi s par ent s st ab each ot her ; and Donal d Fel l was
r ai sed wi t hout posi t i ve r ol e model s. ECF No. 200 at 13- 14.
69
J ur or 143 endeavor ed t o vi ew t he nei ghbor hood hi msel f , and
saw t hat Robbi ns St r eet was not consi st ent wi t h t he evi dence
pr esent ed at t r i al . Speci f i cal l y, t he j ur or not ed t hat Robbi ns
St r eet was a mi ddl e cl ass nei ghbor hood, and not t he sor t of
squal or depi ct ed by t he def ense s pr esent at i on. J ur or 143 al so
l i nked what he saw at Robbi ns St r eet t o Donal d Fel l s f ami l y
hi st or y. As r epor t ed by Ms. Kel sey, t he j ur or expl ai ned t hat t he
home was not how he per cei ved Donal d Fel l s upbr i ngi ng t o be . .
. . [ H] e sai d t hat he expect ed t o j ust see l ess of a house t han
Donal d por t r ayed t hat he was br ought up i n wi t hout par ent s and
wi t hout super vi si on and wi t h dr ugs and al cohol . Mar . 18, 2014
Hr g Tr . at 28- 30.
J ur or 143' s concl usi ons wer e i n l i ne wi t h t he gover nment s
posi t i on t hat Debr a Fel l was a car i ng mot her who sought t o
pr ot ect and pr ovi de a saf e . . . envi r onment f or her chi l dr en.
Tr i al Tr . Vol . I X- 1 at 97. Consequent l y, t he j ur or s obser vat i on
cast doubt upon speci f i c def ense mi t i gat or s such as t he f ami l y
hi st or y of vi ol ence, Fel l s abuse as a chi l d, hi s al l eged
abandonment , and t he l ack of posi t i ve r ol e model s. I ndeed, J ur or
143 concl uded af t er hi s i nvest i gat i on t hat Debr a Fel l was
mur der ed whi l e j ust t r yi ng t o l i ve her l i f e.
Tur ni ng t o t he hypot het i cal j ur or , pr ej udi ce i s agai n
assumed and t he gover nment has an oppor t uni t y t o r ebut t he
pr esumpt i on. See Farhane, 634 F. 3d at 168. Because J ur or 143
70
has deni ed hi s act i ons, t he gover nment i s at a si gni f i cant
di sadvant age. I ndeed, t he gover nment i s t asked wi t h pr ovi ng
har ml essness when t he f ul l ext ent of J ur or 143' s exposur e t o
ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on about Debr a Fel l s r esi dence and t he
cor r espondi ng ext ent of pr ej udi ce i s unknown.
I f t he Cour t does not pr esume pr ej udi ce, t he har mt o Fel l s
mi t i gat i on case i s nonet hel ess r eadi l y appar ent . Fel l s
at t or neys f ocused heavi l y upon hi s upbr i ngi ng, t he negl ect by hi s
par ent s, and t he r el at ed physi cal char act er i st i cs of hi s
chi l dhood home. J ur or 143' s obser vat i ons caused hi mt o di smi ss
some of t hose ar gument s as over st at ed, and he may have shar ed hi s
concl usi ons wi t h t he j ur y. J ur or 143' s concl usi ons ar e r el evant
t o t he pr ej udi ce i nqui r y. See United States v. Lawson, 677 F. 3d
629, 649 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ( t he i mpact t hat t he ext r i nsi c
i nf or mat i on had on t he j ur or who obt ai ned t he i nf or mat i on i s
i mpor t ant i n and of i t sel f ) .
A t ypi cal j ur or vi si t i ng t he Robbi ns St r eet nei ghbor hood
woul d have been si mi l ar l y i nf l uenced by t he cont r ast bet ween, as
Ms. Kel sey descr i bed, a mi ddl e cl ass nei ghbor hood of most l y
si ngl e- f ami l y homes, and t he evi dence of dr unkenness, dr ugs, and
abandonment pr esent ed by Fel l s def ense t eam. J ur or 143
devel oped a r evi sed opi ni on of Donal d Fel l s home l i f e based upon
hi s obser vat i ons, and a t ypi cal j ur or woul d l i kewi se have been
t ai nt ed when r evi ewi ng such evi dence out si de t he conf i nes and
71
pr ot ect i ons of t r i al . See, e.g., Owen, 435 F. 2d at 818 ( j ur or s
consi der at i on of ext r a- r ecor d f act s about def endant s t r oubl ed
backgr ound deni ed def endant due pr ocess) .
The pr ej udi ce f r omJ ur or 143' s mi sconduct may have car r i ed
not j ust t o one hypot het i cal j ur or , but per haps t o t he whol e
panel , as J ur or 143 r epor t edl y shar ed hi s obser vat i ons dur i ng
del i ber at i ons. [ I ] f even a si ngl e j ur or s i mpar t i al i t y i s
over come by an i mpr oper ext r aneous i nf l uence, t he accused has
been depr i ved of t he r i ght t o an i mpar t i al j ur y. See Fullwood
v. Lee, 290 F. 3d 663, 678 ( 4t h Ci r . 2002) ( ci t i ng Parker, 385
U. S. at 366) . Her e, t he ent i r e j ur y r oommay have been af f ect ed.
Whi l e t he j ur or s i n t hi s case endor sed many of t he def ense
t eam s ar gument s wi t h r espect t o mi t i gat i ng f act or s, t hei r
ver di ct f or ms do not r eveal t he wei ght assi gned t o t hose var i ous
f act or s.
21
The wei ghi ng of such f act or s i s a f undament al par t of
deci di ng whet her a deat h sent ence i s war r ant ed, and J ur or 143' s
access t o ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on undoubt edl y al t er ed t hat
21
The def ense pr esent ed ni net een mi t i gat i ng f act or s t o t he
j ur y, and t he Speci al Ver di ct For mal l owed j ur or s t o wr i t e i n
addi t i onal f act or s as appr opr i at e. Havi ng hear d not onl y t he evi dence
f r omt r i al , but al so about J ur or 143' s obser vat i ons, t en of t wel ve
j ur or s f ound t hat Fel l was r ai sed wi t hout posi t i ve r ol e model s, whi l e
ei ght bel i eved t hat as a chi l d he wi t nessed f ami l y vi ol ence. Ten
j ur or s al so hi ghl i ght ed Fel l s t ot al l i f e exper i ence and t he f ai l ur e
of st at e suppor t syst ems t o i nt er vene. ECF No. 200 at 12- 14. Onl y
one j ur or bel i eved t hat Fel l di d not pl an t o ki l l Mr s. Ki ng when she
was ki dnapped, and none of t he j ur or s f ound t hat hi s capaci t y t o
appr eci at e hi s conduct was si gni f i cant l y i mpai r ed. The j ur or s wer e
unani mous as t o Fel l s exper i ences of sexual and physi cal abuse as a
chi l d, hi s abandonment by al cohol i c par ent s, and hi s own abuse of
dr ugs and al cohol .
72
cal cul us. I ndeed, J ur or 143' s comment s t o Ms. Kel sey i ndi cat ed
t hat he was l ess i ncl i ned t o gi ve wei ght t o t he def ense s
mi t i gat i on evi dence, and a hypot het i cal aver age j ur or woul d
have been si mi l ar l y i mpact ed. Farhane, 634 F. 3d at 169.
Mi t i gat i on was a cr i t i cal par t of Fel l s ef f or t t o avoi d t he
deat h penal t y. As t he Supr eme Cour t has not ed, consi der at i on of
t he char act er and r ecor d of t he i ndi vi dual of f ender and t he
ci r cumst ances of t he par t i cul ar of f ense [ i s] a const i t ut i onal l y
i ndi spensabl e par t of t he pr ocess of i nf l i ct i ng t he penal t y of
deat h. Woodson, 428 U. S. at 304. Accor di ngl y, a capi t al
def endant i s ent i t l ed t o pr esent any r el evant mi t i gat i ng evi dence
i n suppor t of a sent ence l ess t han deat h. Payne v. Tennessee,
501 U. S. 808, 822 ( 1991) . The i mpor t ance of mi t i gat i on evi dence
i s hi ghl i ght ed by t he FDPA, whi ch encour ages t he def endant t o
l i st each mi t i gat i ng f act or separ at el y f or t he j ur y s
consi der at i on, and r equi r es j ur or s t o make an i ndi vi dual f i ndi ng
r egar di ng each mi t i gat i ng f act or pr oposed by t he def ense, based
upon t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al . See 18 U. S. C. 3593( c) ,
( d) .
Fur t her mor e, t he Supr eme Cour t has l ong hel d t hat [ t ] he
r equi r ement t hat a j ur y s ver di ct must be based upon t he
evi dence devel oped at t he t r i al goes t o t he f undament al
i nt egr i t y of al l t hat i s embr aced i n t he const i t ut i onal concept
of t r i al by j ur y, and t hat t he Const i t ut i on r equi r es at t he
73
ver y l east t hat t he evi dence devel oped agai nst a def endant
shal l come f r omt he wi t ness st and i n a publ i c cour t r oomwher e
t her e i s f ul l j udi ci al pr ot ect i on of t he def endant s r i ght of
conf r ont at i on, of cr oss- exami nat i on, and of counsel . Turner v.
Louisiana, 379 U. S. 466, 472- 73 ( 1965) ; see also Pointer v.
Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 405 ( 1965) ( Ther e ar e f ew subj ect s,
per haps, upon whi ch t hi s Cour t and ot her cour t s have been mor e
near l y unani mous t han i n t hei r expr essi ons of bel i ef t hat t he
r i ght of conf r ont at i on and cr oss- exami nat i on i s an essent i al and
f undament al r equi r ement f or t he ki nd of f ai r t r i al whi ch i s t hi s
count r y s const i t ut i onal goal . ) . Consequent l y, i t i s
i nappr opr i at e f or a j ur or t o vi ew a cr i me scene wi t hout cour t
per mi ssi on or br i ng ext r aneous mat er i al s t o t he j ur y s
del i ber at i ons. Helmig v. Kemna, 461 F. 3d 960, 962 ( 8t h Ci r .
2006) .
Her e, J ur or 143 vi ol at ed t he f undament al i nt egr i t y of
Fel l s t r i al by under t aki ng hi s own i nvest i gat i on. For Fel l , t he
i nt egr i t y of hi s t r i al was a mat t er of l i f e and deat h. As t he
Cour t not ed pr evi ousl y, t he j udi ci ar y i n t hi s count r y has l ong
r ecogni zed t hat deat h cases ar e di f f er ent . Gardner, 430 U. S.
at 357. The Cour t t her ef or e needs t o ensur e t hat t he ver di ct
agai nst Fel l , as t o bot h gui l t and hi s ul t i mat e penal t y, was
r el i abl e and i ssued by an i mpar t i al j ur y. The Cour t must al so
ensur e t hat mi t i gat i ng f act or s wer e f ai r l y and appr opr i at el y
74
consi der ed, as t hose f act or s ar e const i t ut i onal l y i ndi spensabl e
when i nf l i ct i ng t he penal t y of deat h. Woodson, 428 U. S. at
304. Gi ven t he r evel at i ons about J ur or 143' s exposur e t o ext r a-
r ecor d i nf or mat i on, t he r el evance of t hat exposur e t o t he
aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng f act or s pr esent ed by t he par t i es, and
t he Cour t s concl usi ons as t o bot h pr esumed and act ual har m, t he
Cour t f i nds t hat Fel l di d not r ecei ve a f ai r and r el i abl e t r i al .
2. Juror Bias
The Cour t s anal ysi s r egar di ng J ur or 143 does not end t her e,
however . The j ur or s mi sconduct al so compel s r el i ef on an
addi t i onal gr ound: t he bi as i mpl i ci t i n hi s i nt ent i onal ef f or t s
t o seek out ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on, hi s def i ance of t he Cour t s
i nst r uct i ons, and hi s r epeat ed f al se st at ement s t o t he Cour t .
I ndeed, J ur or 143 s br azen di sobedi ence, di shonest y, and
unwi l l i ngness t o deci de t he case based upon t he evi dence
pr esent ed at t r i al demonst r at e a par t i al i t y t hat woul d have
r esul t ed i n hi s evi ct i on f r omt he panel dur i ng t r i al , and now
i nval i dat es Fel l s convi ct i on.
The McDonough r ul i ng det er mi ned t hat when a j ur or i s f ound
t o have been di shonest dur i ng voi r di r e, and an honest r esponse
woul d have pr ovi ded gr ounds f or a val i d cause chal l enge, t he
seat i ng of t hat di shonest j ur or j ust i f i es gr ant i ng a new t r i al .
Her e, a j ur or was di shonest during t r i al and r emai ned on t he j ur y
panel t hr ough del i ber at i ons and, ul t i mat el y, t he i ssuance of a
75
deat h sent ence. I t has al so been r eveal ed t hat t he j ur or engaged
i n mi sconduct t hat woul d have pr ovi ded cause f or hi s r emoval .
See United States v. Thomas, 116 F. 3d 606, 613 ( 2d Ci r . 1997)
( expl ai ni ng t hat a j ur or may be di smi ssed dur i ng t r i al wher e t he
t r i al cour t f [ i nds] t hat a j ur or [ i ] s no l onger capabl e of
r ender i ng an i mpar t i al ver di ct ) . I t i s t her ef or e appr opr i at e t o
exami ne J ur or 143 s nondi scl osur es and omi ssi ons under t he
McDonough f r amewor k t o det er mi ne whet her j ur or bi as pr ovi des an
addi t i onal basi s f or r el i ef . See Morrison, 984 F. Supp. 2d at
133, 135- 36 ( appl yi ng McDonough anal ysi s i n di scussi on of j ur or
nondi scl osur e dur i ng cour se of t r i al ) .
The Supr eme Cour t hel d i n McDonough t hat a par t y movi ng f or
a new t r i al based on j ur or nondi scl osur e must sat i sf y a t wo- par t
t est : f i r st , t he par t y must show t hat a j ur or f ai l ed t o answer
honest l y a mat er i al quest i on and second, t hat a cor r ect
r esponse woul d have pr ovi ded a val i d basi s f or a chal l enge f or
cause. 464 U. S. at 556; Greer, 285 F. 3d at 170. Her e, t he
Cour t has f ound t hat J ur or 143 di d i n f act vi si t t he cr i me scenes
dur i ng t r i al , i n di r ect cont r avent i on of t he Cour t s expl i ci t
or der s. I t f ol l ows t hat he was t her eaf t er di shonest wi t h t he
Cour t , as t he Cour t asked t he j ur or s each day of t r i al whet her
t hey had been exposed t o any ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on. The Cour t
t hus f i nds t hat J ur or 143 f ai l ed t o answer honest l y a mat er i al
quest i on, sat i sf yi ng t he f i r st pr ong of McDonough.
76
The Cour t must t hen det er mi ne whet her , i f t he j ur or had
pr ovi ded honest answer s at t he t i me, t hi s woul d have pr ovi ded
j ust i f i cat i on f or di smi ssal f r omj ur y ser vi ce. I n ot her wor ds,
t he Cour t must det er mi ne whet her t he i nf or mat i on J ur or 143 f ai l ed
t o di scl ose and t he r easons behi nd hi s nondi scl osur e demonst r at e
bi as. Torres, 128 F. 3d at 43 ( f i ndi ng t hat a j ur or may be
di smi ssed f or cause on t he basi s of act ual , i mpl i ed, or i nf er r ed
bi as) . The out come of t hi s i nqui r y depends on whet her a
r easonabl e j udge, ar med wi t h t he i nf or mat i on t hat t he di shonest
j ur or f ai l ed t o di scl ose and t he r eason behi nd t he j ur or s
di shonest y, woul d concl ude under t he t ot al i t y of t he
ci r cumst ances t hat t he j ur or l acked t he capaci t y and t he wi l l t o
deci de t he case based on t he evi dence. Sampson II, 724 F. 3d at
165- 66 ( ci t i ng McDonough, 464 U. S. at 554) .
J ur or 143 s mi d- t r i al i nvest i gat i on and subsequent non-
di scl osur es ar e bot h pr of ound i ndi cat or s of act ual bi as, or bi as
i n f act . Torres, 128 F. 3d at 43- 44 ( [ A] f i ndi ng of act ual bi as
i s based upon det er mi nat i ons of demeanor and cr edi bi l i t y t hat ar e
pecul i ar l y wi t hi n a t r i al j udge s pr ovi nce. ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on
mar ks omi t t ed) . That J ur or 143 del i ber at el y di sobeyed t he
Cour t s i nst r uct i ons, i n par t i cul ar i nst r uct i ons r egar di ng ext r a-
r ecor d evi dence, st r ongl y i ndi cat es t hat he was unwi l l i ng or
unabl e t o appl y t he l aw as i nst r uct ed by t he cour t t o t he
evi dence pr esent ed by t he par t i es and t her ef or e, suggest [ s]
77
par t i al i t y. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 473 ( quot i ng Thomas,
116 F. 3d at 617) ; see also Sampson II, 724 F. 3d at 169 ( J ur or s
who do not t ake t hei r oat hs ser i ousl y t hr eat en t he ver y i nt egr i t y
of t he j udi ci al pr ocess. ) .
J ur or 143' s di shonest y i t sel f i s al so a power f ul i ndi cat or
of bi as. Id. at 167 ( ci t i ng Colombo, 869 F. 2d at 151;
McDonough, 464 U. S. at 556 ( Bl ackmun, J . , concur r i ng) ( [ I ] n most
cases, t he honest y or di shonest y of a j ur or s r esponse i s t he
best i ni t i al i ndi cat or of whet her t he j ur or i n f act was
i mpar t i al ) ; see also Colombo, 869 F. 2d at 149 ( f i ndi ng t hat a
j ur or s wi l l i ngness t o l i e . . . exhi bi t [ s] an i nt er est st r ongl y
suggest i ng par t i al i t y) . Thi s i s because [ f ] ew, i f any,
pr ospect i ve j ur or s woul d wi l l f ul l y vi ol at e t hei r oat h, and
knowi ngl y subj ect t hemsel ves t o pr osecut i on f or per j ur y, wi t hout
a st r ong per sonal i nt er est i n t he out come of t he case.
Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 473 ( ci t i ng Colombo, 869 F. 2d at
151) ; see also Morrison, 984 F. Supp. 2d at 134 ( Sur el y [ t he
j ur or ] r ecogni zed t hat hi s wi l l f ul f ai l ur e t o abi de by hi s oat h
exposed hi mt o some t ype of si gni f i cant sanct i on shoul d hi s
abhor r ent conduct l at er be uncover ed. ) .
I n Colombo, t he Second Ci r cui t f ound bi as wher e t he j ur or i n
quest i on f ai l ed t o honest l y answer a quest i on because she
bel i eved i t mi ght l ead t o her di smi ssal f r omt he case and t hus
her wi l l i ngness t o l i e about i t exhi bi t ed an i nt er est st r ongl y
78
suggest i ng par t i al i t y. Colombo, 869 F. 2d at 151- 52. Her e,
J ur or 143 br ashl y i gnor ed t he Cour t s di r ect i ves, t el l i ng Ms.
Kel sey: I can do what I want t o do. I need t o see t hi s f or
mysel f . Mar . 18, 2014 Hr g Tr . at 43. When asked by Ms. Kel sey
about t he pr opr i et y of hi s i ndependent i nvest i gat i on, J ur or 143
di d not pr ovi de any sor t of l egi t i mat e j ust i f i cat i on f or t he
t r i p, i nst ead r espondi ng, [ n] obody s her e. Nobody can see us.
Id. at 44- 45. These st at ement s i ndi cat e t hat J ur or 143 knew hi s
act i ons wer e not al l owed, and t hat he r i sked di smi ssal f r omt he
j ur y i f he r eveal ed hi s conduct t o t he Cour t . Ther eaf t er , J ur or
143 l i ed t o t he Cour t speci f i cal l y i n or der t o st ay on t he j ur y,
t her eby evi denci ng t he same par t i al i t y t hat t he Second Ci r cui t
f ound so pr obl emat i c i n Colombo.
Thi s does not mean t hat ever y t i me a j ur or br eaks hi s or her
oat h, t hat j ur or i s necessar i l y bi ased. The Cour t concl udes t hat
bi as i s est abl i shed her e, however , due t o t he ext ent of J ur or
143 s mi sconduct and t he cont ext i n whi ch i t occur r ed. J ur or
143 s di sobedi ence was not onl y pr ol onged and si gni f i cant , but i t
occur r ed under uni quel y ser i ous ci r cumst ances. Thi s j ur or
di sr egar ded t he Cour t s i nst r uct i ons, obt ai ned ext r a- r ecor d
evi dence, and shar ed hi s f i ndi ngs wi t h hi s f el l ow j ur or s. Hi s
mi sconduct was cl ear , del i ber at e, and i n pl ai n vi ol at i on of hi s
j ur or oat h. Fur t her mor e, t he j ur y i n t hi s case was t asked wi t h
deci di ng whet her Fel l woul d l i ve or di e. Whi l e t her e ar e no
79
per f ect t r i al s, McDonough, 464 U. S. at 553, t he Cour t agai n
not es t hat i n a t r i al wher e t he def endant s l i f e i s at st ake,
par t i cul ar scr ut i ny i s r equi r ed. See Woodson, 428 U. S. at 305
( f i ndi ng t hat t he deat h penal t y cr eat es a hei ght ened need f or
r el i abi l i t y i n sent enci ng) . The Cour t was t hus especi al l y
sensi t i ve t o el i mi nat i ng bi as f r omFel l s j ur y; i ndeed, t he Cour t
gave r epeat ed i nst r uct i ons and sat f our al t er nat e j ur or s f or t hi s
ver y r eason. The Cour t necessar i l y concl udes t hat onl y a t r ul y
bi ased j ur or woul d engage i n such del i ber at e mi sconduct under
t hese ci r cumst ances.
Donal d Fel l had a const i t ut i onal r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al . As
t he Supr eme Cour t made cl ear i n McDonough, a f ai r t r i al r equi r es
a j ur y t hat i s capabl e and wi l l i ng t o deci de t he case sol el y on
t he evi dence bef or e i t . McDonough, 464 U. S. at 554 ( quot i ng
Smith, 455 U. S. at 217) . McDonough det er mi ned t he pr oper r emedy
when, af t er t r i al , i t i s di scover ed t hat j ur or di shonest y
vi ol at ed t hat basi c r i ght , and est abl i shed t he t est f or j ur or
di shonest y dur i ng voi r di r e. I n t hi s case, J ur or 143' s
mi sconduct and di shonest y occur r ed dur i ng t r i al . Nonet hel ess,
t he f undament al pr i nci pl es under l yi ng McDonough appl y, and Fel l
i s ent i t l ed t o an appr opr i at e r emedy. I ndeed, i t i s wel l
est abl i shed t hat due pr ocess r equi r es a new t r i al wher e act ual
j ur or bi as has been shown. See Smith, 455 U. S. at 217. Whi l e
such cases ar e deci dedl y r ar e, J ur or 143' s ext r aor di nar y def i ance
80
of t he Cour t s i nst r uct i ons, hi s subsequent f ai l ur e t o di scl ose
hi s mi sbehavi or , and hi s cont i nued di shonest y bef or e t he Cour t
r ender t hi s such a case. The mot i on f or habeas cor pus r el i ef on
t he basi s of J ur or 143' s col l ect i on of ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on
and r el at ed mi sconduct i s t her ef or e GRANTED.
3. Juror Coercion
Fel l al so al l eges t he J ur or 143 coer ced anot her j ur or by
poi nt i ng a weapon at her head. The cl ai mar i ses out of J ur or
143' s swor n decl ar at i on, i n whi ch he st at ed t hat a f emal e j ur or
poi nt ed out t he f act t hat Fel l s shot gun was not l oaded. A
member of t he Uni t ed St at es Mar shal s Ser vi ce al l egedl y br ought
t he gun i nt o t he j ur y r oom, wher eupon J ur or 143 made sur e t hat
t he gun was unl oaded . . . cocked and poi nt ed i t a[ t ] her and she
squi r med. I sai d, That s what t hey di d, you wer e scar ed even
t hough you knew i t wasn t l oaded. Fel l Hr g Ex. 1, 8. Fel l
bel i eves t hat t hi s demonst r at i on per suaded t he j ur or t o change
her vot e t o deat h.
The Si xt h Amendment pr ovi des t hat [ a] ny cr i mi nal def endant
. . . bei ng t r i ed by a j ur y i s ent i t l ed t o t he uncoer ced ver di ct
of t hat body. Anderson v. Miller, 346 F. 3d 315, 326 ( 2d Ci r .
2003) ( quot i ng Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U. S. 231, 241 ( 1988) .
[ Q] uest i ons of j ur y coer ci on st r i ke[ ] at t he r oot of
t he r i ght t o a t r i al by j ur y. No per son may l awf ul l y
be convi ct ed by a j ur y unl ess ever y j ur or act ual l y
agr ees t hat upon t he evi dence and t he l aw of t he case
t hat per son i s gui l t y. I f a ver di ct of gui l t y i s
81
r et ur ned f or any ot her r eason, i t i s a per ver si on of
t he const i t ut i onal guar ant y t o a j ur y t r i al .
Anderson, 346 F. 3d at 326 ( quot i ng United States v. Pleva, 66
F. 2d 529, 532 ( 2d Ci r . 1933) ) .
Her e, t he evi dence of j ur or coer ci on i s weak. At t he August
15, 2013 j ur or i nqui r y, t he Cour t asked J ur or 143 about hi s
r ef er ence t o a shot gun i n t he swor n decl ar at i on. The j ur or
r esponded: Ther e was no gun poi nt ed at anybody. Dur i ng t he
del i ber at i ons, we di dn t have any f i r ear mi n t her e. When t her e
was a di scussi on over t hi ngs, somebody had ment i oned t hat i t
wasn t even l oaded, and I si mul at ed, si mul at ed poi nt i ng a gun at
somebody. Aug. 15, 2013 Hr g Tr . at 28. Fel l s counsel al so
conf r ont ed J ur or 143 about t he shot gun, and J ur or 143 agai n
deni ed t he accur acy of t he swor n decl ar at i on, st at i ng: I don t
know what I was t hi nki ng at t he t i me, but I know I t hi nk i t s
wr ong r i ght now . . . . I don t t hi nk i t s wr ong. I know i t s
wr ong.
COUNSEL: And t hen you go on t o say, I cocked and poi nt ed
i t at her and she squi r med. That was a
J UROR: Fal se.
COUNSEL: t r ut hf ul st at ement , si r , wasn t i t ?
J UROR: No.
COUNSEL: That s what -
J UROR: I have never ai med a f i r ear mat anybody, not i n
t hi s cour t , not out of t hi s cour t . I si mul at ed
poi nt i ng a f i r ear m. Ther e was no f i r ear ml ef t i n
82
t he j ur y r oom.
COUNSEL: You pi cked up t he gun and you poi nt ed i t at t he
j ur or .
J UROR: No.
COUNSEL: You sayi ng you di dn t do t hat ?
J UROR: That s what I msayi ng. Ther e was no f i r ear mi n
t he j ur y r oompoi nt ed at anybody.
COUNSEL: You j ust happen t o be mi st aken.
J UROR: That s r i ght .
Id. at 54- 55.
Gi ven J ur or 143' s l ack of cr edi bi l i t y, t he Cour t must
consi der ot her r el evant t est i mony bef or e deci di ng whet her t he
coer ci on cl ai mi s adequat el y suppor t ed. As not ed above, t he
swor n decl ar at i on was dr af t ed af t er J ur or 143' s i nt er vi ew wi t h
At t or ney Zl oczower and her col l eague f r omCl ear y Got t l i eb. On
di r ect exami nat i on at t he Mar ch 18, 2014 hear i ng, At t or ney
Zl oczower t est i f i ed t hat when J ur or 143 r evi ewed t he wr i t t en
decl ar at i on, he was not ent i r el y sur e about t he pr esence of t he
shot gun i n t he j ur y r oom: He sai d t hat now t hat he s l ooki ng at
t hi s, he wasn t sur e whet her or not he i n f act poi nt ed t he act ual
shot gun at t he - at hi s f el l ow j ur or or whet her he used hi s ar m
and hi s hand t o symbol i ze t he shot gun. Mar . 18, 2014 Hr g Tr .
at 72. At t or ney Zl oczower asked hi mt o put down what he
r emember s best , wher eupon J ur or 143 l ooked at i t agai n and
sai d, No, I t hi nk t hat s okay [ as wr i t t en] . Id. Accor di ngl y,
83
even at t he t i me t he decl ar at i on was si gned, J ur or 143 was
equi vocal about t he accur acy of t hi s st at ement .
At t he August 15, 2013 hear i ng, J ur or 162 was asked whet her
she r emember ed a f i r ear mi n t he j ur y r oom. She r esponded: I
never saw a f i r ear mi n t he j ur y r oom, no. Aug. 15, 2013 Hr g
Tr . at 198. When asked mor e speci f i cal l y whet her she saw a
shot gun i n t he j ur y r oom, t he j ur or answer ed: I don t r ecal l
t hat . Id. Thi s j ur or s t est i mony, i n conj unct i on wi t h At t or ney
Zl ocwozer s r ecol l ect i on of her conver sat i ons wi t h J ur or 143 and
J ur or 143' s out r i ght deni al , each wei gh agai nst a f i ndi ng of
coer ci on by means of an act ual weapon.
The gover nment cont ends t hat t he cl ai mof j ur or i nt i mi dat i on
or coer ci on i s specul at i ve. The gover nment al so cont ends t hat
J ur or 143' s st at ement s about what occur r ed i n t he j ur y r oomar e
i nadmi ssi bl e under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 606( b) . Gi ven t he
st at e of t he evi dence, t he Cour t need not r esol ve t hese
quest i ons. Wher e a j ur or s saf et y was t hr eat ened by f el l ow
j ur or s, t he t hr eat r ai se[ s] ser i ous const i t ut i onal concer ns
wi t h r espect t o a def endant s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al . Anderson
v. Miller, 346 F. Supp. 2d 352, 360 ( E. D. N. Y. 2002) . The
evi dence does not suppor t f i ndi ng such a t hr eat i n t hi s case, and
t he Cour t t hus decl i nes t o gr ant r el i ef on t hi s basi s.
22
22
Fel l f ur t her cont ends t hat J ur or 143 f al sel y r epr esent ed
dur i ng voi r di r e t hat he had never been accused of a cr i me. Thi s
al l egat i on ar i ses out of an i nci dent i n whi ch J ur or 143 was accused of
84
C. Juror 26
Fi nal l y, Fel l al l eges t hat J ur or 26 f ai l ed t o di scl ose
mat er i al i nf or mat i on dur i ng voi r di r e, and was exposed t o
pr ej udi ci al ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on pr i or t o t r i al .
1. Non-disclosures
When asked on t he j ur or quest i onnai r e, Have you or has a
f ami l y member or cl ose f r i end ever been char ged wi t h a cr i me,
J ur or 26 answer ed No. Fel l has est abl i shed t hat J ur or 26 was
convi ct ed i n Apr i l 1996 of unl awf ul mi schi ef , a mi sdemeanor , f or
whi ch he r ecei ved a f i ne of $100. I n J anuar y 1995, he was
convi ct ed i n New Hampshi r e f or dr i vi ng under t he i nf l uence.
J ur or 26 was al so char ged i n 1992 wi t h a mi sdemeanor f or f ai l i ng
t o pay one of hi s wor ker s. Fel l f ur t her cl ai ms t hat J ur or 26
f ai l ed t o r eveal hi s son s pr i or cr i mi nal hi st or y, f ai l ed t o
ment i on f ami l y i nvol vement i n var i ous ci vi l sui t s, and wi t hhel d
t he f act t hat hi s f at her ser ved i n l ocal gover nment .
At t he j ur or i nqui r y i n Sept ember 2013, t he Cour t quest i oned
J ur or 26 about hi s own cr i mi nal hi st or y. The j ur or r esponded:
r emovi ng a pi cni c t abl e f r oma publ i c r ecr eat i on ar ea. The
compl ai nant st at ed t hat he f ol l owed J ur or 143 and t r i ed t o over t ake
hi mi n hi s vehi cl e at a hi gh r at e of speed, but depar t ed when J ur or
143 di spl ayed a handgun. The pol i ce det er mi ned t hat t he pi cni c t abl e
i n t he back of J ur or 143' s t r uck was not t he st ol en i t em, and no
char ges wer e f i l ed. The Cour t f i nds t hat when r espondi ng t o t he j ur or
quest i onnai r e, t hi s j ur or may not have per cei ved quest i oni ng by l aw
enf or cement as t he equi val ent of a cr i mi nal accusat i on. Accor di ngl y,
Fel l i s not ent i t l ed t o r el i ef on t he basi s of t hi s cl ai m.
85
I t hi nk i t i t was a l ong t i me ago, but I t hi nk you r e
r i ght , yes. I di dn t . . . . I I di dn t t hi nk t hat
I had wel l , I di dn t t hi nk t hey wer e ser i ous enough
t o be l i ke I di dn t t hi nk of i t as any mor e t han a
speedi ng t i cket or , you know . . . .
Sept . 27, 2013 Hr g Tr . at 4- 5. J ur or 26 al so expl ai ned t hat t he
unl awf ul mi schi ef char ge occur r ed af t er he cut a phone l i ne t hat
he hi msel f had i nst al l ed. Hi s wi f e f i l ed t he compl ai nt , and
accor di ng t o J ur or 26, he was i ssued a ci t at i on and t he mat t er
was t her eaf t er di smi ssed. Hi s wi f e subsequent l y f i l ed a second
compl ai nt , and J ur or 26 pai d a $100 f i ne.
When t he Cour t asked J ur or 26 about hi s f ai l ur e t o di scl ose
t he DWI convi ct i on, J ur or 26 r esponded: No, I r eal l y di dn t
t hi nk about i t at t he t i me. Id. at 12. Wi t h r espect t he wage
payment mat t er , J ur or 26 t est i f i ed t hat he ul t i mat el y pai d t he
wor ker , and bel i eved t hat once payment was made t he char ge woul d
not be r ef l ect ed on hi s cr i mi nal r ecor d. Id. at 32. He al so
st at ed t hat he di d not ment i on t he i nci dent because he di d not
t hi nk i t was i mpor t ant . Id. at 33.
Based upon J ur or 26' s t est i mony, t her e i s i nsuf f i ci ent
evi dence t hat t hi s j ur or i nt ent i onal l y wi t hhel d i nf or mat i on, or
t hat hi s r esponses wer e evi dence of bi as. See McDonough, 464
U. S. at 556. Wi t h r espect t o hi s cr i mi nal vi ol at i ons, t he j ur or
l i kened t hemt o a speedi ng t i cket , and i n some i nst ances
bel i eved t hat t he of f enses had been r emoved f r omhi s r ecor d.
Not hi ng i n t hese r esponses demonst r at es di shonest y. See, e.g.,
86
Green v. Vacco, 961 F. Supp. 46, 50 ( W. D. N. Y. 1997) ( f i ndi ng no
mi sconduct wher e j ur or f ai l ed t o di scl ose past cr i mi nal
convi ct i on based upon i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by her at t or ney) . The
same i s t r ue of t he j ur or s ot her nondi scl osur es i nvol vi ng ci vi l
sui t s and hi s son s cr i mi nal hi st or y. See, e.g., Stewart, 433
F. 3d at 30506 ( di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n decl i ni ng t o hol d
hear i ng wher e j ur or f ai l ed t o di scl ose r ecent $11, 000 adver se
j udgment and i nf or mat i on about son s cr i mi nal r ecor d) .
Accor di ngl y, no r el i ef i s war r ant ed on t he basi s of J ur or 26' s
nondi scl osur es dur i ng voi r di r e.
2. Extra-Record Information
Fel l al so cl ai ms t hat hi s t r i al was t ai nt ed by J ur or 26 s
exposur e t o ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on. I n a post - t r i al i nt er vi ew
wi t h Fel l s habeas counsel , J ur or 26 r eveal ed t hat at t he t i me of
t r i al , he was awar e of Rober t Lee s deat h, and was under t he
i mpr essi on f r oma news r epor t t hat Lee had commi t t ed sui ci de.
Fel l cl ai ms t hat t hi s exposur e was pr ej udi ci al , not i ng t hat Lee s
name was used mul t i pl e t i mes t hr oughout t r i al and t he Cour t
gr ant ed a def ense mot i on t o excl ude any evi dence r el at i ng t o
Lee s deat h. See Op. & Or der 8, May 25, 2005, ECF No. 131.
On t he l ast day of t he penal t y phase, t he gover nment r ead
t he f ol l owi ng st i pul at i on i nt o t he r ecor d:
I t i s st i pul at ed and agr eed by and bet ween t he
under si gned par t i es t hat on Febr uar y 1st , Rober t Lee
and Donal d Fel l wer e char ged by gr and j ur y i ndi ct ment
87
wi t h t he same cr i mes. On Sept ember 20, 2001, Lee di ed
i n hi s cel l at t he Nor t hwest Cor r ect i onal Faci l i t y i n
St . Al bans, Ver mont . Hi s deat h was det er mi ned t o be
acci dent al . At t he t i me of hi s deat h, Lee f aced t he
same char ges as Fel l .
Tr i al Tr . Vol . XI at 93. Asi de f r omacci dent al , t her e was no
ment i on i n t he st i pul at i on, or el sewher e at t r i al , of t he cause
of Lee s deat h.
Unl i ke J ur or 143, J ur or 26 has admi t t ed t o hi s knowl edge of
ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on dur i ng t r i al . I n hi s t est i mony bef or e
t he Cour t dur i ng t he post - t r i al hear i ngs, J ur or 26 st at ed t hat
when Lee s name was ment i oned at t r i al , he r emember ed t hat he
had hear d i t on t he news t hat [ Lee] had commi t t ed sui ci de.
Sept . 27, 2013 Hr g Tr . at 28. He al so t est i f i ed t hat he hear d
t hi s news r epor t qui t e a whi l e bef or e [ t r i al ] . Id. at 14.
When asked by t he Cour t whet her he t hought t hat memor y was
r el evant , J ur or 26 st at ed: I never t hought t hat i t was t hat
r el evant ot her t han because he wasn t on t r i al , and he was
act ual l y passed away. Id. at 16. Af t er a br i ef r ecess, t he
Cour t agai n asked J ur or 26 whet her he t hought hi s knowl edge of
Lee s deat h was i mpor t ant , t o whi ch t he j ur or r esponded, No, I
di dn t at t he t i me t hi nk i t was i mpor t ant t o anyt hi ng. Id. at
28.
Fel l has t hus est abl i shed t hat J ur or 26 was exposed t o
ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on. The l aw pr esumes pr ej udi ce f r om
exposur e t o such i nf or mat i on unl ess t he gover nment can show t hat
88
t he ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on was har ml ess. Farhane, 624 F. 3d
at 168 ( quot i ng Bibbins, 21 F. 3d at 16) . As set f or t h above, i n
maki ng t hi s det er mi nat i on t he Cour t must appl y an obj ect i ve t est
t o det er mi ne whet her t he ext r aneous i nf or mat i on woul d af f ect a
hypot het i cal j ur or . See Greer, 285 F. 3d at 173.
Her e, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he gover nment has met i t s bur den
t o show har ml essness. The evi dence i ndi cat es t hat J ur or 26 was
exposed t o a news r epor t r egar di ng Lee s sui ci de l ong bef or e
t r i al . He was t hen i nf or med at t r i al t hat t he par t i es had
st i pul at ed Lee s deat h was det er mi ned t o be acci dent al . A
t ypi cal j ur or woul d not have di sr egar ded t he st i pul at i on i n f avor
of a hal f - f or got t en news r epor t , par t i cul ar l y gi ven t he Cour t s
r epeat ed i nst r uct i ons t o t he j ur y t hat t hey wer e t o r ender a
deci si on sol el y on t he evi dence hear d at t r i al . Mor eover , unl i ke
J ur or 143 s ext r a- r ecor d exposur e, whi ch was pl ai nl y har mf ul t o
t he def ense s case and hel pf ul t o t he gover nment s, t he
ext r aneous i nf or mat i on her e was i nconsi st ent wi t h a st i pul at i on.
I ndeed, as t he Cour t r ecogni zed at voi r di r e, bot h par t i es
ar guabl y had an i nt er est i n keepi ng t he f act of t he sui ci de f r om
t he j ur y. See J ur or Voi r Di r e 1 at 77 ( obser vi ng t hat knowl edge
of sui ci de af f ect s t he f ai r ness t o t hi s def endant , as wel l as
t he gover nment ) .
Fel l ar gues t hat pr ej udi ce can nonet hel ess be est abl i shed by
t he f act t hat anot her pr ospect i ve j ur or was excused bef or e t r i al
89
i n par t because he knew about t he det ai l s of Lee s deat h. I n
excusi ng t he j ur or , t he Cour t st at ed:
Second, he has got some i nf or mat i on about t hi s case
whi ch no one el se has, and t hat i s t hat Mr . Lee
commi t t ed sui ci de. And i f he i s al l owed t o si t on a
j ur y, t hat means t he ent i r e j ur y get s t o know t hat Mr .
Lee commi t t ed sui ci de. And t hat i s of gr ave concer n t o
me, i n t er ms of f ai r ness t o t hi s def endant , as wel l as
t he gover nment , f or t hat mat t er . . . .
Id. Based on t he Cour t s st at ement s, Fel l submi t s t hat J ur or
26 s knowl edge of Lee s f at e was pr ej udi ci al . However , t he f act
t hat a j ur or was excused on t hi s basi s does not est abl i sh t hat
J ur or 26' s ext r a- r ecor d exposur e woul d pr ej udi ce t he hypot het i cal
j ur or . Thi s i s because, unl i ke t he di smi ssed j ur or , t he act ual
j ur y was ul t i mat el y i nf or med at t r i al t hat t he par t i es had
st i pul at ed t o Lee s cause of deat h. The st i pul at i on mi ni mi zes
any r i sk of pr ej udi ce.
The Second Ci r cui t has war ned t hat [ a] di st r i ct cour t must
be car ef ul t hat i t does not i t sel f cr eat e pr ej udi ce by
exagger at i ng t he i mpor t ance and i mpact of ext r a- r ecor d
i nf or mat i on. Farhane, 634 F. 3d at 169 ( quot i ng United States v.
Abrams, 137 F. 3d 704, 708 ( 2d Ci r . 1998) ) . Her e, i n cont r ast
wi t h t he ci r cumst ances r egar di ng J ur or 143, t he l ow r i sk of
pr ej udi ce t o t he hypot het i cal j ur or does not j ust i f y a new t r i al .
The Cour t t her ef or e f i nds no gr ounds f or gr ant i ng r el i ef on t he
basi s of J ur or 26' s ext r a- r ecor d knowl edge.
IV. Conclusion
90
The Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on pr ovi des t hat ever y def endant
i s ent i t l ed t o a f ai r t r i al bef or e an i mpar t i al j ur y. A f ai r
t r i al r equi r es a j ur y t hat i s capabl e and wi l l i ng t o deci de t he
case sol el y on t he evi dence bef or e i t . McDonough, 464 U. S. at
554 ( quot i ng Smith, 455 U. S. at 217) . Thi s r equi r ement goes t o
t he f undament al i nt egr i t y of al l t hat i s embr aced i n t he
const i t ut i onal concept of t r i al by j ur y, ensur i ng t hat at t he
ver y l east t he evi dence devel oped agai nst a def endant shal l
come f r omt he wi t ness st and i n a publ i c cour t r oomwher e t her e i s
f ul l j udi ci al pr ot ect i on of t he def endant s r i ght [ s] . Turner,
379 U. S. at 472- 73. The r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al al so guar ant ees a
j ur y f r ee of bi as. See Morgan, 504 U. S. at 729 ( I f even one
[ par t i al ] j ur or i s empanel ed and t he deat h sent ence i s i mposed,
t he [ gover nment ] i s di sent i t l ed t o execut e t he sent ence. ) .
J ur or 143 vi ol at ed t he f undament al i nt egr i t y of Fel l s t r i al
by del i ber at el y under t aki ng an i ndependent i nvest i gat i on. Thi s
i s def i ni t i vel y est abl i shed by J ur or 143' s own swor n decl ar at i on,
t he t est i mony of hi s domest i c par t ner who t r avel ed wi t h hi mt o
t he cr i me scenes, and a l at er par t ner wi t h whomhe shar ed hi s
pl ans. The j ur or t r avel ed over t wo hour s t o vi ew t he cr i me
scenes i n knowi ng vi ol at i on of t he Cour t s or der s. Whi l e t her e,
he vi ewed ext r a- r ecor d i nf or mat i on t hat was hi ghl y r el evant t o
t he aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng f act or s pr esent ed at t r i al . Af t er
br eachi ng hi s oat h as a j ur or , he r et ur ned t o t he cour t r oomwher e
91
he pur posef ul l y negl ect ed t o i nf or mt he Cour t of hi s
t r ansgr essi ons. And year s l at er , dur i ng a post - t r i al pr oceedi ng
convened speci f i cal l y t o assess t he f ai r ness of Fel l s t r i al ,
J ur or 143 openl y l i ed t o t he Cour t about whet her he had commi t t ed
t hese act s.
Whet her J ur or 143 s f al sehoods wer e dr i ven by hi s r egr et
and embar r assment , as pr of f er ed by t he gover nment , or wer e a
r esul t of i nt ent i onal and f l agr ant di sr egar d of t he j udi ci al
pr ocess, t her e i s no quest i on t hat J ur or 143 was exposed t o
pr ej udi ci al i nf or mat i on t hat was never i nt r oduced at t r i al nor
subj ect ed t o t he j udi ci al saf eguar ds of cr oss- exami nat i on,
conf r ont at i on, and counsel . Thi s i nf or mat i on i mpl i cat ed t he
aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng f act or s t hat wer e cent r al t o t he
j ur y s deat h penal t y det er mi nat i on, and t hus woul d have i mpact ed
a hypot het i cal j ur or s sent enci ng del i ber at i ons. J ur or 143 s
ext r aor di nar y and cont i nuous def i ance of t he Cour t s di r ect i ves
al so evi dences a par t i al i t y t hat t ai nt ed t he i nt egr i t y of Fel l s
t r i al and vi ol at ed hi s const i t ut i onal r i ght t o an unbi ased j ur y.
Because of J ur or 143 s del i ber at e mi sconduct , Fel l had a
j ur y t hat was not capabl e, nor wi l l i ng, t o deci de hi s case sol el y
on t he evi dence bef or e i t . He was t her ef or e deni ed a f ai r t r i al ,
and hi s convi ct i on and sent ence must be vacat ed. Whi l e t he Cour t
i s r el uct ant t o t ur n back t he cl ock on a mat t er t hat has r equi r ed
such si gni f i cant r esour ces i n t er ms of t i me, ef f or t , and, f or
92
some, emot i on, i t sees no al t er nat i ve gi ven J ur or 143 s act i ons.
I n par t i cul ar , t he Cour t i s mi ndf ul of t he i mpact upon Mr s.
Ki ng s f ami l y, whi ch has suf f er ed f or so l ong as a r esul t of t hi s
t r agedy.
Fel l s amended Sect i on 2255 mot i on on t he basi s of j ur or
mi sconduct i s GRANTED, and Fel l i s ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al . The
Cour t not es, however , t hat t her e ar e r emai ni ng cl ai ms i n Fel l s
amended mot i on. The par t i es shal l conf er and i nf or mt he Cour t
t hr ough br i ef i ng of t hei r r espect i ve posi t i ons as t o how t hi s
mat t er shoul d pr oceed. Such br i ef i ng shal l be f i l ed on or bef or e
Sept ember 30, 2014.
DATED at Bur l i ngt on, i n t he Di st r i ct of Ver mont , t hi s 24
t h

day of J ul y, 2014.
/ s/ Wi l l i amK. Sessi ons I I I
Wi l l i amK. Sessi ons I I I
Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge
93

PDF: Ruling On New Trial For Donald Fell

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF: Ruling On New Trial For Donald Fell

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

You might also like