Griffis v. Hurley , 151 F. App'x 355 ( 2005 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0683n.06
Filed: August 9, 2005
No. 03-4648
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER GRIFFIS, )
)
Petitioner-Appellant, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
PAT HURLEY, Warden, ) SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
)
Respondent-Appellee. )
Before: SUHRHEINRICH and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, and HOOD,* District
Judge.
PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Christopher Griffis, is an inmate in custody of the
Ohio correctional system as the result of his conviction of aggravated robbery and
kidnaping, for which he is serving a 16-year sentence. He filed a federal habeas action,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he raised two claims for relief: (1) that he was
denied his constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury and to confront the evidence
against him when, during trial, a member of the jury conducted an experiment outside of
the courtroom and reported the results to the other jurors, and (2) that he was denied the
*
The Hon. Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting
by designation.
No. 03-4648
Griffis v. Hurley
effective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied relief, and Griffis has
now appealed.
The record indicates that the petitioner was charged with committing an assault
robbery at knife point in broad daylight in a drug store parking lot. He was positively
identified by the victim, both at the scene shortly after the offense was committed and at
trial, and the identification was corroborated by additional testimony from eyewitnesses and
the officers who apprehended Griffis in the area shortly after the robbery occurred. Griffis
did not testify, but his wife did, saying that her husband had left home on foot that morning
intending to submit applications for employment at businesses located in the same area.
After the jury returned a guilty verdict, one of the jurors told defense counsel that on the
night of the first day of the trial, he had driven to Griffis’s house and from there to the scene
in order to determine the distance from the petitioner’s residence to the location where
Griffis was arrested. The other jurors present indicated that based upon that information,
they determined that the defendant had not spent the night before the robbery at his home
and then gone looking for a job the next morning.
When defense counsel moved for a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct, the
trial court denied the motion, finding that under Ohio’s “aliunde rule” a juror is not permitted
to impeach his own verdict without outside evidence from a separate source. On direct
appeal, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling and the Ohio Supreme Court denied
review. Griffis later moved to reopen his appeal, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel
-2-
No. 03-4648
Griffis v. Hurley
on direct appeal for failure to raise the validity of the victim’s identification, based on the
unduly suggestive nature of the one-on-one show-up at the scene of the offense and on
trial counsel’s failure to that and other issues at trial. The motion to reopen was denied and
review by the Ohio Supreme Court was again denied.
In federal court, the magistrate judge who was assigned the case correctly found
that, as a matter of federal law, the information introduced by the juror was extraneous
evidence, not merely a matter of juror impeachment, and that it amounted to a violation of
the petitioner’s right to a fair trial and his right to confront the evidence against him.
However, the magistrate judge also concluded that the error, while constitutional in nature,
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because it did not have “a substantial and
injurious effect or influence” on the jury’s verdict, Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623
(1993), in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented by the state. The district
court agreed with this assessment, and so do we.
We likewise agree with the magistrate judge’s determination that Griffis could not
demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to raise certain issues on appeal
because they were each without merit. Based on the magistrate judge’s recommendation,
the district court therefore properly denied relief on the claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal
and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in denying
-3-
No. 03-4648
Griffis v. Hurley
habeas relief to petitioner. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the
respondent have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed
opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly,
we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for the reasons set out in its opinion and order
dated October 30, 2003, and filed on October 31, 2003, adopting the report of the
magistrate judge filed on September 12, 2003.
-4-