United States ex rel. Tobe v. Bensinger

• Decision Date: 12 February 1974
• Docket Number: No. 73-1331.,73-1331.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Melvin TOBE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Peter B. BENSINGER, Director Department of Correction of State of Illinois, and John J. Twomey, Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary, Joliet, Illinois, Respondents-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

492 F.2d 232 (1974)

UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Melvin TOBE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Peter B. BENSINGER, Director Department of Correction of State of Illinois, and John J. Twomey, Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary, Joliet, Illinois, Respondents-Appellants.

No. 73-1331.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued December 5, 1973.

Decided February 12, 1974.

Jayne A. Carr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for respondents-appellants.

James R. Bronner, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner-appellee.

Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, SPRECHER, Circuit Judge, and POOS,^* District Judge.

SPRECHER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal raises the question of whether the district court properly granted a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner based on a finding that unauthorized jury communications to the effect that the jury had to keep deliberating and reach a verdict involved such a probability of prejudice that they must be deemed to have resulted in an inherent lack of due process.

I

The defendant, Melvin Tobe, was found guilty in an Illinois state court of voluntary manslaughter on February 27, 1970 by a petit jury. At that time, the jury was polled and each juror stated that the verdict "was and is" his or her verdict.

At the prosecutor's request, the attorneys were permitted to speak to the jurors about the case. As a result of such conversations, defense counsel's post trial motions included a motion for a hearing on inquiries made by the jury in the course of their deliberations (hearing on inquiries) "in order to determine the number and substance of inquiries made by the jury to the Court in the course of their deliberations . . ." Attached to the motion was defense counsel's affidavit stating that in telephone conversations with the forelady and two other jurors he had learned that "three inquiries made of the Court by the jury never reached the Court." The inquiries all concerned the possibility of reaching a nonunanimous verdict. The responses were to the effect that the jury must keep deliberating and reach a unanimous verdict.¹

In ruling on the motion for a hearing on inquiries, the trial judge questioned the bailiff, Thomas Goe, under oath who testified that he knew of only one inquiry made by the jury and that inquiry was answered by the court. The trial judge added that his notes showed only one inquiry was directed to him.² The court denied the motion for a hearing on inquiries on the basis that assuming arguendo that the communications between the bailiff and the jury occurred, they were not prejudicial.³

On April 7, 1970, defense counsel filed a motion to reconsider the original motion for a hearing on inquiries. The motion was supported by the affidavits of seven jurors and two bailiffs. Subsequently, the affidavit of a deputy sheriff was filed. The affidavits of the jurors indicated that three or four inquiries concerning the alternatives to a unanimous verdict had been made⁴ about 3 ½ hours into deliberations when the jury stood nine for acquittal, two for guilty of voluntary manslaughter and one for guilty of murder. Some of the jurors indicated that these communications had influenced the verdict. The affidavit of Bailiff Domitila Rodriquez stated that the buzzer had been rung at least two or three times and Thomas Goe had responded on these occasions. The affidavit of the deputy sheriff Grover Weiss, stated that two or three times during the course of deliberations "the jury made inquiries to the effect: `What happens if we cannot reach a verdict?'" and that the bailiff "Toni" (Bailiff Rodriquez) had answered that "they should keep deliberating until they reached a decision."

At the April 15, 1970 hearing, defense counsel cross examined Bailiff Goe who reaffirmed his prior testimony but also admitted that it was possible that another bailiff could have answered a jury call. The State did not present any evidence contrary to the affidavits but argued that portions of the affidavits were attempts to impeach the jury's verdict. The court then announced that it was considering the proceedings on the motion for a hearing on inquiries as a hearing itself for the purpose of determining whether defendant was entitled to a new trial. Indicating that it had considered the trial court record, all the affidavits filed by the defense except those portions which referred to the effect of the alleged communications on the jury deliberations, the testimony of Bailiff Goe, the written instructions given to the jury,⁵ arguments of counsel, the polling of the jury, and the court's own knowledge of certain events during deliberations,⁶ the court denied the motion for a new trial. The court specifically found that the evidence clearly established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that Goe's communication with the jurors was not intended to influence the deliberations, that the polling of the jury conclusively established that the communication did not affect the verdict, and that the defendant had not been prejudiced. In response to a question from defense counsel, the court additionally stated:

"The Court finds that the only evidence of any communication established here is the communication testified to by Mr. Goe in the manner and form as stated by Mr. Goe."

On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the conviction. People v. Tobe, 49 Ill.2d 538, 276 N.E.2d 294 (1971). The court in pertinent part found:

"The trial court did not err in not setting aside the verdict because the defendant was not present at the time of the communication, as the defendant says was necessary. As was stated in Mills, People v. Mills, 40 Ill.2d 4, 237 N.E.2d 697 (1968) if there was a communication to the jury by the court outside the presence of the defendant and it is apparent that no prejudice resulted, the verdict will not be set aside. We do not judge that the communication between the jurors and the bailiffs was coercive and prejudicial as the defendant claims. Considering the length of the trial 5 days and the time the jury spent in deliberating approximately 7 hours, we do not believe it can be reasonably said that the statements of the bailiffs, that the jurors should continue to deliberate until they reached a verdict can be regarded as coercive."

People v. Tobe, 49 Ill.2d at 543-544, 276 N.E.2d at 298.

On June 9, 1972, defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court together with a supporting memorandum seeking issuance of the writ or alternatively an evidentiary hearing on the ground that the alleged jury communications violated his sixth amendment right to a fair and impartial jury. On September 26, 1972, respondents filed a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6) motion to dismiss. By Memorandum Opinion and Order on December 18, 1972, 352 F.Supp. 218, the district court denied the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the state trial court's finding of a single communication was not supported by the record⁷ and that although the Illinois Supreme Court considered all the alleged communications in determining the question of prejudice, it failed to evaluate them in light of the principles set forth in "Allen charge" cases. The court allowed the parties time to submit any additional documentary evidence or to request a hearing for the presentation of testimonial evidence. Based on the trial record and the only additional evidence submitted, a further affidavit of the forelady of the jury, the district court issued a second Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus (February 22, 1973). The court found that:

"(1) on more than one occasion, a bailiff or bailiffs responded, without the trial judge\'s knowledge, to inquiries from the deliberating jury as to what they should do if they were deadlocked;

(2) the essence of these responses was that the jury had to keep deliberating and reach a verdict;

(3) none of the responses contained the admonition that no juror should relinquish his conscientiously held convictions to join in a majority verdict;

(4) respondents have failed to show that the responses were not coercive;

(5) the nature of the responses involved such a probability of prejudice that they must be deemed to have caused an inherent lack of due process."

II

In Illinois, a jury verdict will not be set aside upon the occurrence of a communication between the jury and the court or some third person outside the presence of the defendant where it is apparent that no prejudice has resulted. People v. Mills, 40 Ill.2d 4, 14-15, 237 N.E.2d 697, 702-703 (1968); People v. Tilley, 411 Ill. 473, 477-478, 104 N.E.2d 499, 501-502 (1952); People v. Brothers, 347 Ill. 530, 548, 180 N.E. 442, 447-448 (1932). In an attempt to make a showing of prejudice based on the affidavits of jury members, actual evidence of the nature of outside influences exerted on the jury during deliberations will be considered, but evidence relating to the effect of such influences on the mental processes of jury members is inadmissible. People v. Pulaski, 15 Ill.2d 291, 300, 155 N.E.2d 29, 34 (1958). Because the actual effect of the conduct on the minds of the jury cannot be proved, the Illinois Supreme Court has held that the standard to be applied is whether the "conduct involved `such a probability that prejudice will result that it is to be deemed inherently lacking in due process.' Estes v. State of Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 542-543, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1633, 14 L. Ed.2d 543." People v. Tobe, 49 Ill.2d at 544, 276 N.E.2d at 298.

In Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363, 87 S.Ct. 468, 17 L.Ed.2d 420 (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Oregon Supreme Court's approval of the defendant's conviction where the trial court bailiff told one juror that the "wicked fellow was guilty" and told another juror that the Supreme Court would correct an erroneous guilty verdict. There one of the jurors testified that she was prejudiced by the statements. In...