4
Per Curiam
Per Curiam.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted habeas relief to respondent William Packer after concluding that the state trial judge coerced the jury's verdict. Packer v. Hill, 291 F. 3d 569 (2002). Because this decision exceeds the limits imposed on federal habeas review by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d), we grant the petition for certiorari and reverse.
I
A California jury convicted respondent of one count of second-degree murder, one count of attempted murder, two counts of attempted robbery, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, and one count of assault with a firearm. It acquitted him on 10 other counts.
The path to the jury's guilty verdicts on the murder and attempted-murder charges was not an easy one. After 28 hours of deliberation, and after the jury had returned sealed verdict forms on all the other charges, juror Eve Radcliff sent a note to the judge requesting to be dismissed from the jury due to " 'health problems.' " 291 F. 3d, at 573. The judge then met alone with Radcliff, who explained that " 'be-cause of the seriousness of the charges, I can't make snap decisions. . . . I was beginning to feel a little burned out.' " Ibid. The judge asked Radcliff if she could " 'hold out just a little bit longer,' " and when Radcliff agreed the judge replied: " 'I really appreciate it. Otherwise, they have to start deliberations all over again with another person.' " Ibid. (emphasis deleted).
The next day, the foreman sent the judge a note stating that " 'we can no longer deliberate,' " that " 'Eve Radcliff, does not appear to be able to understand the rules as given by you,' " that " 'nearly all my fellow jurors questio[n] her ability to understand the rules and her ability to reason,' " and that continuing will result in a " 'hung jury . . . based on . . . one person's inability to reason or desire to be unreasonable.' " Ibid. The judge called the jury into the court-
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007