Cook v. Foss

Background

Timonte E. Cook filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asking the court to review the validity of his California convictions. A jury convicted Cook of second-degree murder of Rueben Cannon, Jr., first-degree murder of Nicholas Martin, and shooting at an occupied vehicle. The jury also found true firearm-use enhancements, and the trial court sentenced Cook to 90 years to life.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Cook later filed state petitions raising six issues. After those claims were denied in state court, Cook included them in his federal petition along with a juror-misconduct claim that had been raised on direct appeal. On January 22, 2021, the court dismissed the six state-habeas claims as procedurally defaulted, leaving the juror claim for decision in this order.

Juror-bias claim

Near the end of the prosecution’s evidence, Juror No. 7 sent the trial court a note asking whether jurors should be concerned about their own safety or their families’ safety. The court assured the juror that identifying information about jurors would be sealed, told him not to let his concerns affect his deliberations or cause him to hold anything against Cook, and asked whether he had discussed the concern with other jurors. The juror said he understood and had not done so. He also said he had isolated his family.

Cook’s trial lawyer asked the court to investigate further, arguing that the juror’s actions suggested he had already decided Cook was guilty. The trial court declined to ask what steps the juror had taken to isolate his family, reasoning that this would not show whether the juror could be fair and might increase his anxiety. The trial court later denied Cook’s request for a new trial.

The California Court of Appeal concluded that Cook had not shown a substantial likelihood that Juror No. 7 was actually biased. It also held that the trial court had not abused its discretion by declining to conduct a further investigation. The federal court reviewed that decision under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which sharply limits federal relief from state convictions unless the state court unreasonably applied clearly established United States Supreme Court law or unreasonably found the facts.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant a trial before an impartial jury. But Supreme Court precedent does not require a new trial whenever a juror encounters a potentially troubling situation, nor does it require a hearing every time a claim of juror bias arises. The relevant question was whether the state court unreasonably determined that Juror No. 7 was not actually biased and that no additional inquiry was required.

The court held that the state court’s decision was reasonable. Juror No. 7 expressed concern about safety, but the trial court addressed that concern in the presence of the attorneys, instructed him not to let it affect his decision, and received his response that he understood. The fact that the juror took steps to protect his family did not, by itself, show that he could not decide the case based on the evidence. The court also determined that no clearly established Supreme Court authority required a different or more extensive inquiry under these circumstances.

The court separately rejected any argument about the trial court’s failure to question other jurors because Cook raised that argument for the first time in his traverse, rather than in his petition. The court declined to consider the new argument and stated that, even if considered, it would fail for the same reasons.

Disposition

Judge Gilliam denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Tammy Foss and close the file. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue, while noting that Cook may seek a certificate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.