Porter v. Zook
Decision Date | 03 August 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 16-18,16-18 |
Citation | 898 F.3d 408 |
Parties | Thomas Alexander PORTER, Petitioner–Appellant, v. David ZOOK, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
ARGUED: Robert Edward Lee, Jr., Virginia Capital Representation Resource Center, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Matthew P. Dullaghan, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Dawn M. Davison, Virginia Capital Representation Resource Center, Charlottesville, Virginia; Trey R. Kelleter, Vandeventer Black, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded with instructions by published opinion.
This death penalty case is before us for the second time. In 2007 Thomas Alexander Porter ("Appellant") was convicted in Virginia state court of capital murder for killing a Norfolk law enforcement officer, Stanley Reaves. He was sentenced to death.
After he pursued direct and collateral review in state court, Appellant filed the operative 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in the district court, raising a host of challenges to his conviction and sentence. Chief among them was a claim that one of the jurors was biased against him. Specifically, when asked at voir dire whether any jurors had relatives in law enforcement, the juror did not disclose that his brother was a law enforcement officer in the jurisdiction adjacent to Norfolk.
The district court dismissed the § 2254 petition. See Porter v. Davis , No. 3:12-cv-550, 2014 WL 4182677, at *52 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 2014) ("Porter I "). Appellant filed a plenary appeal of that dismissal, and we dismissed the appeal and remanded for further consideration of Appellant's actual bias claim, which the district court failed to address in the first instance. See Porter v. Zook , 803 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 2015) (" Porter II "). On remand, the district court dismissed Appellant's actual bias claim as a matter of law without holding an evidentiary hearing. See Porter v. Zook , No. 3:12-cv-550, 2016 WL 1688765, at *1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2016) (" Porter III "). We now consider an appeal of that decision and the dismissal of his other claims.
Although we affirm on the majority of Appellant's claims, we are constrained to remand once again on the juror bias issue. In dismissing the actual bias claim, the district court failed to recognize the applicability of Supreme Court precedent requiring a hearing in these circumstances; erected inappropriate legal barriers and faulted Appellant for not overcoming them; and ignored "judicially-recognized factors" in determining whether a hearing is necessary. United States v. Henry , 673 F.3d 285, 291 (4th Cir. 2012). We likewise conclude that the district court erred in Porter I by dismissing Appellant's separate but related juror bias claim brought pursuant to McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood , 464 U.S. 548, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984).
We therefore affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with instructions that the district court allow discovery and hold an evidentiary hearing on Appellant's two separate juror bias claims.
In Virginia state court on March 7, 2007, Appellant was convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a felony, grand larceny of a firearm, and capital murder for killing a law enforcement officer in order to interfere with the performance of his official duties.1 The following facts were adduced at Appellant's trial:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Porter v. Gilmore
...Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the matter back to this Court with instructions. See Porter v. Zook , 898 F.3d 408, 414 (4th Cir. 2018) (" Porter II "). This time, the Fourth Circuit observed that,After he pursued a direct and collateral review in state court, Appell......
-
Folkes v. Nelsen
...Brady6 violations, actual innocence) with each claim connected to different acts or omissions by counsel. See, e.g., Porter v. Zook , 898 F.3d 408, 434–37 (4th Cir. 2018) (analyzing different factual grounds as separate IAC claims); Moore v. Hardee , 723 F.3d 488, 495–500 (4th Cir. 2013) (s......
-
Lawlor v. Zook, 17-6
...failure to express remorse and his counsel’s pre-trial strategy to contest guilt?"5 This court’s § 2254 decisions in Porter v. Zook , 898 F.3d 408 (4th Cir. 2018), and Morva v. Zook , 821 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2016), do not control this issue. For example, in Porter , we concluded the state co......
-
Sigmon v. Stirling
...counsel was ineffective or absent, and that the underlying [ineffective assistance of counsel] claim is substantial." Porter v. Zook , 898 F.3d 408, 438 (4th Cir. 2018), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2012, 204 L.Ed.2d 220 (2019). To demonstrate that "the underlying ineffective-as......
-
4.4 Selection of the Petit Jury
...was required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but that the defendant would have to prove his innocence); Porter v. Zook, 898 F.3d 408, 425 (4th Cir. 2018) ("If even one partial juror is empaneled and the death sentence is imposed, the State is disentitled to execute the sentence.").......