Wells v. Murray, 86-7683

• Citation: 831 F.2d 468
• Decision Date: 13 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-7683,86-7683
• Parties: Eugene Kevin WELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant- Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

Page 468

831 F.2d 468

Eugene Kevin WELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward MURRAY, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Defendant- Appellee.

No. 86-7683.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fourth Circuit.

Argued March 2, 1987.

Decided Oct. 13, 1987.

Deborah C. Wyatt (Gordon & Wyatt, Jeffrey M. Gleason, Martin & Martin, Charlottesville, Va., on brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Frank Snead Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Mary Sue Terry, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., on brief), for defendant-appellee.

Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

ERVIN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of Eugene Kevin Wells's federal habeas corpus petition. Wells shot and killed a teenager who had vandalized his car. At trial in Virginia state court, there was conflicting evidence as to whether this shooting was accidental or not. The jury convicted Wells of first degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. After his appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court was dismissed, Wells petitioned for habeas corpus relief in federal district court. His petition was denied.

On appeal, Wells claims several procedural errors of a constitutional magnitude. He attacks the trial court's refusal to allow defense counsel to ask certain questions during voir dire, the trial court's exclusion of expert testimony concerning the propensity of his weapon for self-firing, and the propriety of jury instructions on self-defense. In our view, none of these alleged errors warrant reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Wells's habeas corpus petition.

I.

At the time of the shooting incident, Wells lived in a remote area of Culpeper County, Virginia. On the weekend of September 3, 1983, a group of teenagers went camping near Wells's home. Wells discovered some of the teenagers vandalizing his car. One of the youths, eighteen year-old Joe Maybury, had smashed a rear window of the car. When Wells confronted the teenagers, they fled. Wells then returned to his home and considered the situation while drinking several beers.

Later that afternoon, Wells went to a lake where the teenagers were swimming. He took his shotgun with him. As he came upon the youths, Wells fired a warning shot into the air. He recocked his weapon and advanced upon the boys. There was conflicting testimony at trial as to the ensuing events. According to the prosecution's witnesses, Wells pointed the shotgun at Maybury and prodded him with it; Maybury was shot when he tried to push the shotgun away. Wells testified that Maybury attempted to grab the shotgun, that there was a struggle over possession of the weapon, and that the weapon accidentally discharged during the struggle. Maybury was shot in the abdomen. He subsequently died as a result of his gunshot wounds.

Wells was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court of Culpeper County in December, 1983. He was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Wells was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charge and a term of two years for the firearms charge. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court. He then petitioned for habeas corpus relief in federal district court, but his petition was denied. Wells now appeals the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition.

II.

A. Voir Dire

Wells first claims that he was denied a fair trial, in violation of the sixth amendment and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, because the trial judge failed to inquire adequately into juror prejudice on voir dire. Wells's claim arises from the publicity surrounding an earlier Culpeper County trial.

Less than a week before Wells's trial, several of the jurors who were in his jury pool sat on another criminal case involving embezzlement charges, Commonwealth v. Richards, (Criminal Court File No. 2516, Nov. 30, 1983). In Richards, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The presiding judge, who was not the judge in Wells's trial, criticized the jurors upon hearing their verdict. He stated that, by their verdict, the jurors were "telling the citizens and people of Culpeper County that it's all right for an employee to [embezzle]." He called their verdict a "gross miscarriage of justice." The judge asserted that he would have found the defendant guilty in about two minutes. He then discharged the jurors, admonishing them to return by December 6, 1983, the opening day of Wells's trial. The judge's criticism attracted the attention of a local newspaper, which printed a front-page story on the incident. ¹

At the start of Wells's trial, defense counsel proposed several voir dire questions based on the jurors' prior participation in the Richards case. Counsel wished to inquire whether the jurors were more inclined to convict Wells after being chastised for their leniency by the judge in Richards. The trial judge did not permit those questions to be asked. Instead, the judge asked more general questions, such as whether any of the prospective jurors had a personal interest in the outcome of Wells's case, and whether any of them had prior knowledge of Wells's case. When the prospective jurors indicated such prior knowledge, the judge questioned them individually, asking them what they had learned and how their knowledge would affect their views of the case. All of the veniremen questioned stated that their knowledge of the case would not influence their decision. ²

Wells claims that these questions were insufficient, and that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to inquire into the effect of the public castigation which the Richards jurors experienced. His claim raises the much-litigated issue of pretrial publicity. It is firmly established that a defendant such as Wells is entitled to a fair trial, free from publicity that prejudices jurors against the defendant at its outset. See Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1642, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961) ("the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, 'indifferent' jurors"); see also United States v. Sawyers, 423 F.2d 1335, 1344 (4th Cir.1970). Jurors, however, are presumed to be impartial, absent indications to the contrary. The existence of a juror's preconceived notion as to the guilt of the accused will not by itself destroy the presumption of impartiality. See Irvin, 366 U.S. at 723, 81 S.Ct. at 1642-43. Only in extreme circumstances may prejudice to a defendant's right to a fair trial be presumed from the existence of pretrial publicity itself. See United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 60, (D.C.Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933, 97 S.Ct. 2641, 53 L.Ed.2d 250 (1977). ³

In other, less extreme situations, when external events such as pretrial publicity raise a strong possibility of jury bias, ⁴ the court has a duty to determine whether the accused may have a fair trial. Inquiry into jury bias typically entails an evaluation of "the pre-trial publicity complained of and its impact, if any, on the jury, as developed through adequate voir dire examination of the jurors...." Wansley v. Slayton, 487 F.2d 90, 92-93 (4th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 994, 94 S.Ct. 2408, 40 L.Ed.2d 773 (1974).

It is the defendant's responsibility to demonstrate a strong possibility of jury bias. He must show, through adequate voir dire, that he was denied his right to a fair trial before a panel of unbiased jurors. See Haldeman, 559 F.2d at 60. The assertion that voir dire was inadequate, by itself, does not prove that the jury was not impartial. As noted in Wansley, " 'it is not sufficient to simply allege adverse publicity without a showing that the jurors were biased thereby.' " Id. at 92 n. 8 (quoting Ignacio v. Guam, 413 F.2d 513, 518 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 943, 90 S.Ct. 959, 25 L.Ed.2d 124 (1970)). ⁵

In this case, Wells has not shown that he was, in all likelihood, denied his right to a fair trial. The publicity which Wells complains of--publicity surrounding the verdict in the Richards case--simply does not raise a strong possibility of jury bias. The trial court, then, acted within its discretion in refusing, during voir dire, to inquire into the effects of that publicity on the Richards jurors.

We reach this conclusion after much thought and consideration. A comparison of this case with leading decisions concerning the effects of pretrial publicity on the extent of voir dire is instructive. Wells urges us to analogize his case to the Supreme Court's decision in Irvin. ⁶ The analogy is not an appropriate one. In Irvin, the defendant was indicted on murder charges in one Indiana county, where press releases stated that the defendant had confessed to the murder. The defendant was granted a change of venue to a nearby county that had also received the press releases. He was denied a second change of venue to a more remote county, and was subsequently convicted. The Supreme Court held that the defendant was denied his due process rights under the fourteenth amendment because his trial in state court was not impartial.

The situation in Irvin must be distinguished from the instant situation. In Irvin, the unfavorable publicity concerned the defendant himself, and it was disseminated throughout the community in which he was tried. By contrast, in this case, the publicity of which Wells complains did not concern Wells and the shooting incident. Instead, the media reported the castigation of several of Wells's veniremen by a different judge, in a different case, involving different issues. Wells asserts that this castigation made the Richards jurors reluctant to acquit a defendant in a later case. His assertion is too weak to warrant a reversal, especially in light of the Irvin Court's cautionary note:

It is not required ... that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved.... To hold that the mere existence of any...