Grooms v. Wainwright, 79-1372

Decision Date25 January 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-1372,79-1372
Citation610 F.2d 344
PartiesClifford GROOMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, etc., Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Norman L. Hull, Orlando, Fla. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., Max Rudmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before THORNBERRY, GEE and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:

In this habeas corpus case we must decide whether the state violated appellant's right against double jeopardy when the state retried him after the judge declared a mistrial without interrogating the jury, and whether appellant was denied his due process right to an impartial jury in light of a remark allegedly made by a juror during the second trial.Because we find that appellant's constitutional rights were not violated, we affirm the denial of appellant's habeas corpus petition.

I.Facts.

AppellantClifford Grooms was charged in Florida state court with armed robbery of a fried chicken restaurant on August 26, 1974.At trial Grooms admitted that he committed the robbery, but contended that he was coerced at gunpoint by his friend John.Grooms testified that while he and John were eating in the restaurant, John pressed a snub-nose 0.38 pistol against Groom's stomach under the table.John then allegedly drew a silver-toothed revolver from inside his pants and handed it to Grooms.Grooms testified that he looked down the barrel of the silver-toothed revolver and saw that it had no bullets.Because John allegedly threatened to shoot Grooms if he refused to participate, Grooms walked with John up to the cashier, threatened her with the gun, and robbed the restaurant.

At the trial in December, 1974, in Florida state court, none of the witnesses who were present in the restaurant testified that they saw John threaten Grooms with a gun.While the jury was deliberating after the close of the case, the trial judge learned that, upon the request of a juror, the bailiff had permitted his snub-nose 0.38 service pistol to be examined by the jury in the jury room.The pistol had not been introduced into evidence.The judge summoned the jury into the courtroom.After a short bench conference with counsel, the judge asked the bailiff a few questions about the pistol and what happened when he gave it to the jurors.The judge declared that the make, shape, and size of the pistol were a very critical part of the testimony presented at trial, and that the jurors' examination of the bailiff's pistol made the need for a mistrial "manifest and urgent and absolute."The judge declared a mistrial, then asked both counsel if they had anything else to present to the court.The prosecutor said he had nothing, and the defense counsel was silent.

Grooms filed for a writ of prohibition against a second trial, but the state district court of appeals denied the writ, and the Florida Supreme Court denied certiorari.

In September, 1975, Grooms was retried in state court and found guilty.After the jury rendered its verdict, Grooms moved for a new trial on the ground that, on the second day of the four-day trial, Grooms' mother overheard a statement by one female juror to four others in the restroom.The juror allegedly said "As far as I'm concerned, (from) what I heard already he's guilty."The trial judge held a hearing at which Grooms' mother testified with defense counsel present.The prosecution did not appear at the hearing.Although the judge indicated that he might hold a second hearing at which the state could cross-examine Grooms' mother, no second hearing was called.Defense counsel requested the judge to interrogate the jurors about the alleged comment.The judge said he would consider such an interrogation, but later he denied the motion for a new trial without holding the interrogation.

Grooms appealed his conviction to the state district court of appeals, who affirmed per curiam.In June, 1977, Grooms filed for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court.The judge denied both of Grooms' claims on the merits, from which decision Grooms now appeals.

II.Double Jeopardy.

Grooms properly exhausted his state remedies on his double jeopardy claim.His writ of prohibition and appeal from the conviction both raised this claim, and were denied by the state appellate courts.

In Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717(1978), the Supreme Court discussed the standards for the declaration of a mistrial so that the defendant's right against double jeopardy would not be violated upon the subsequent retrial.In Washington the state court judge declared a mistrial in a murder case because the defense counsel had made a statement before the jury about prosecutorial misconduct in suppressing evidence at a previous trial.In making this decision the judge heard arguments from counsel, deliberated overnight, and expressed his concern about the possibility that a mistrial order would preclude another trial because it would place the defendant in double jeopardy.434 U.S. at 500-01, 98 S.Ct. 824.The judge did not interrogate the jurors, mention that he had considered alternatives to a mistrial, or expressly find a "manifest necessity" for a mistrial.Id.After Washington's appeal from the mistrial order was denied by the Arizona Supreme Court, the federal district court granted habeas corpus relief because the state judge had made no finding of "manifest necessity."The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court reversed the grant of the writ.The Court held that the fifth amendment does not require the judge to make an express finding of "manifest necessity" before declaring a mistrial if the record as a whole shows such a manifest necessity.434 U.S. at 516-17, 98 S.Ct. 824.The Court observed that, in declaring the mistrial, the judge had not acted precipitately, he expressed concern about the double jeopardy problem, and he heard arguments from counsel.434 U.S. at 515-16, 98 S.Ct. 824.Even though other trial judges might have used cautionary instructions or other measures short of a mistrial to correct prejudice to the jury, a judge need not expressly consider these alternatives to satisfy the fifth amendment.434 U.S. at 511, 98 S.Ct. 824.Because the trial judge is familiar with the events at trial and the factors leading to the mistrial order, appellate courts should give the judge's mistrial order the "highest degree of respect,"Id., and commit the mistrial decision to the judge's "sound discretion."434 U.S. at 514, 98 S.Ct. 824.

The trial judge's declaration of a mistrial in Grooms' case satisfies the Arizona v. Washington standards.Unlike the judge in Washington, the judge below made an express finding that the need for a mistrial was "manifest and urgent and absolute" because the make, shape, and size of the pistol were a critical factor in determining whether Grooms was actually coerced by John.As in Washington, the judge's...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
40 cases
  • State v. Tate
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 22 Mayo 2001
    ...necessity by examining the entire record in the case without limiting itself to the actual findings of the trial court. Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1980)." Abdi v. Georgia, 744 F.2d 1500, 1503 (11th Cir. ......
  • U.S. v. Darby
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 29 Octubre 1984
    ...[T]his court has not imposed a stringent duty of investigation upon a district judge under comparable circumstances. Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). Instead, "[t]he judge's decision whether to interrogate the ......
  • U.S. v. Webster
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 26 Diciembre 1984
    ...expression of an opinion about the merits of a case rises to the level of pervasive publicity or jury tampering. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 348 (5th Cir.) ("Moreover, a juror's statement that '[from] what I heard already he's guilty' ... before the defendant presents any eviden......
  • Spring v. Caldwell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 25 Junio 1981
    ...exhausted and reached the merits of petitioner's claims, and respondents could not later be heard to complain. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1980); Messelt v. State of Alabama, 595 F.2d 247 (5th Cir. 1979); West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973), aff'd in pertin......
  • Get Started for Free