Garcia-Dorantes v. Warren

• Citation: 801 F.3d 584
• Decision Date: 04 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 13–2439.,13–2439.
• Parties: Antonio GARCIA–DORANTES, Petitioner–Appellee, v. Millicent WARREN, Warden, Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

801 F.3d 584

Antonio GARCIA–DORANTES, Petitioner–Appellee

v.Millicent WARREN, Warden, Respondent–Appellant.

No. 13–2439.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: April 28, 2015.

Decided and Filed: Sept. 4, 2015.

Rehearing En Banc Denied: Oct. 21, 2015.^*

ARGUED:John S. Pallas, Office of the Michigan Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Bradley R. Hall, Office of the federal Public Defender, detroit, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:John S. Pallas, B. Eric Restuccia, Office of the Michigan Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant. Bradley R. Hall, James R. Gerometta, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.

Before: MERRITT and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; POLSTER, District Judge.^**

ROGERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which POLSTER, D.J., joined. MERRITT, J. (pp. 604–06), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

OPINION

ROGERS, Circuit Judge.

This case involves Antonio Garcia–Dorantes' procedurally defaulted claim challenging the constitutionality of the jury selection computer program in Kent County, Michigan. In September 2001, a jury convicted Garcia–Dorantes of murder in the second degree and assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder. Before his trial started, Garcia–Dorantes failed to raise a Sixth Amendment challenge to the racial composition of the jury venire. In July 2002, the Grand Rapids Press published a story about a computer glitch in the Kent County software that had systematically excluded African–Americans from the jury pool from April 2001 through early 2002. As a result of the article, Garcia–Dorantes included a Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section claim in his direct appeal, which the state courts denied as procedurally defaulted due to his failure to object to the composition of the jury venire at trial. Garcia–Dorantes then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in federal court. The district court—attempting to apply the prejudice standard set forth in Ambrose v. Booker, 684 F.3d 638, 652 (6th Cir.2012), a companion case—found that Garcia–Dorantes had sufficiently demonstrated cause and actual prejudice to excuse his procedural default and had established a prima facie violation of his Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section right. The Respondent appeals. Because Garcia–Dorantes has shown cause and actual prejudice to excuse his procedural default and has established a prima facie violation of his Sixth Amendment fair-cross-section right, the district court properly granted habeas relief.

On September 10, 2001, a jury convicted Antonio Garcia–Dorantes of murder in the second degree and “assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder.” R. 29 (PgID 520). The district court described the offense and trial as follows:

[Garcia–Dorantes] was involved in a fight and stabbed two people, one fatally, in Grand Rapids, Michigan in the early morning hours of October 22, 2000.

Jose Gomez, the homicide victim, died from a single stab wound to his upper chest, just beneath his collar bone. A 3–3/8 inch stab wound penetrated his left lung and punctured his pulmonary artery. The medical examiner determined that Gomez had been intoxicated at the time of the fight, with a blood alcohol level of .31 percent. Although the medical examiner testified that most persons would be comatose with a blood alcohol level above .30 percent, he could not discount the possibility that Gomez could have attacked someone in a fight situation if he was a habitual drinker.

Manuel Garcia was the assault victim. He worked for Gomez. The two men had been drinking that night until about 4:00 a.m. They arrived at Gomez's house with a third companion, Gonzalo Ramirez–Toledo. When they drove up, [Garcia–Dorantes'] truck was parked across the street. [Garcia–Dorantes] testified that he thought the men were part of a gang and that they had tried to force him off the road during an earlier encounter that [day].¹

[Garcia–Dorantes or one of the other men in his truck] was standing outside of his truck. [According to Garcia,] Gomez got out of Garcia's truck and walked toward [Garcia–Dorantes], stating that he “did not want any problems”; he told the petitioner that he should leave or Gomez would call the police. Garcia and Ramirez–Toledo then got out of Garcia's truck and approached [Garcia–Dorantes]. Two other persons had also exited [Garcia–Dorantes'] truck. Ramirez–Toledo said [Garcia–Dorantes] had his hand behind his back when he first saw him standing beside his truck. Ramirez–Toledo said he did not see what occurred between [Garcia–Dorantes] and Gomez, nor did he see a knife in [Garcia–Dorantes'] hand.

Garcia testified that when Gomez asked the men to leave, [Garcia–Dorantes] replied “And if I don't want to?” and punched Gomez in the face. Gomez fell down, got up again and “threw himself” at [Garcia–Dorantes]. Garcia acknowledged that he did not see which man started the fight[, though he initially claimed that Garcia–Dorantes hit Gomez first]. As Garcia attempted to break the fight up, he felt a cramp in his leg and later learned that he had been stabbed in the buttock. Garcia was also stabbed in the back of his neck. Garcia testified that [Garcia–Dorantes] then threatened him with a bottle. Ramirez–Toledo testified that Gomez asked him to call the police. As Ramirez–Toledo did so, one of [Garcia–Dorantes'] friends hit him in the head with a bottle. [There is no record that Ramirez–Toledo ever connected with a 9–1–1 operator.] Ramirez–Toledo then heard Gomez say, “Let's go.” Ramirez–Toledo observed [Garcia–Dorantes] get into his truck and leave the area, squealing his tires as he left. Gomez, Garcia, and Ramirez–Toledo [then] got into Garcia's truck. Once inside, Garcia noticed that [Ramirez–Toledo] was very bloody. Garcia [left to drive] Gomez [and Ramirez–Toledo] to the hospital. [Garcia–Dorantes] and his companions had [already] left the area. While driving Gomez to the hospital, Garcia passed [Garcia–Dorantes'] truck when it stopped at a stop sign. When Garcia stopped at a red light, [Garcia–Dorantes] drove up and crashed into the rear of Garcia's truck. Garcia continued driving but claimed that [Garcia–Dorantes] crashed into his pickup truck two more times. Garcia drove to Gomez's brother's house, where they called the police and an ambulance. Police responded to a dispatch of a shooting to an address on Rose Street. Upon arrival, emergency personnel informed the police that it had actually been a stabbing and Gomez had died. Officers then received a dispatch for a “hit and run” and went to [Garcia–Dorantes'] house. The police were informed that [Garcia–Dorantes] had been involved in a hit and run accident. They noticed damage to the front of [Garcia–Dorantes'] vehicle. They arrested [Garcia–Dorantes] and his friend named Christian Diaz.

Police Officer John Riley testified that he interviewed [Garcia–Dorantes] in the early morning hours of October 22, 2000. Riley ascertained that [Garcia–Dorantes] spoke very little English. Riley testified that he was “pretty fluent” in Spanish, and he read [Garcia–Dorantes] his Miranda rights in Spanish. Thereafter, [Garcia–Dorantes] made two verbal statements. In his first statement, he blamed his wife for the truck crash and resulting damage. Later that afternoon, he made a second statement in which he admitted to having been involved in a fight. [Garcia–Dorantes] told the police that he thought that Gomez and his friends were “gangbangers” who had threatened him earlier.

Detective Gregory Griffin was present when both statements were made. He testified that although he found no evidence that any of the persons involved in this altercation were gang members, he could not rule out that Gomez was a gang member.

[Garcia–Dorantes] testified on his own behalf at trial, explaining that he was celebrating his daughter's birthday on October 21, 2000. He and his friends later left the party to go to his girlfriend's house, with whom he was having an extramarital affair. [Garcia–Dorantes] parked in front of the house and went to the door. When there was no answer, he returned to his truck. It was then that he saw Garcia's truck arrive. [Garcia Dorantes] claimed that Garcia had tried to ram him with his truck earlier that day and had tried to run [him] off the road. He thought Gomez, Garcia, and Toledo were gang members. According to [Garcia–Dorantes], a person from the victim's truck provoked the fight. When others joined in, he became scared and pulled a knife, thrusting it once as a person lunged at him. It does not appear as though any of the other individuals had weapons. [Garcia–Dorantes] left and his friends followed. [Garcia–Dorantes] claimed that when he went to drive away, the men pulled their truck in front of him and “locked” their brakes, causing [Garcia–Dorantes'] vehicle to collide with their truck.

[Garcia–Dorantes] went home and told his wife about the accident. He said his wife volunteered to tell the police that she had been driving because [Garcia–Dorantes] was intoxicated at the time. [Garcia–Dorantes] denied intending to harm anyone.

[Garcia–Dorantes'] common-law wife, Anayeli Castellanos, testified that [Garcia–Dorantes] woke her in the early morning hours of October 22, 2000 and informed her that someone had crashed into his truck. [Garcia–Dorantes] demanded that she call the police to report the incident. The police arrived and arrested [Garcia–Dorantes]. Castellanos admitted that she suggested that [Gracia–Dorantes] inform the police that she had been driving because [Garcia–Dorantes] appeared scared and had been drinking² .

[In closing, Garcia–Dorantes] argued that he acted in self-defense, and that the crime was no worse than manslaughter.³ [After the trial court instructed the jury on three separate, alternative charges related to Gomez's death—murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and voluntary manslaughter—][t]he jury found [Garcia–Dorantes

...