No. 24-7370

Jonathan Davis v. United States

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-06-06
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure implied-bias juror-disqualification jury-impartiality sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-11-21 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Constitution require selected jurors to be free from implied bias and what standards should apply when assessing an implied bias claim?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an impartial jury. Over 115 years ago, this Court recognized that “[b]ias or prejudice is such an elusive condition of the mind that it is most difficult, if not impossible, to always recognize its existence, and it might exist in the mind of one . . . who was quite positive that he had no bias[.]” Crawford v. United States, 212 U.S. 183, 196 (1909). Today, jurors who are disqualified despite their own protestations of impartiality are said to be impliedly biased or biased as a matter of law. This Court’s decision in Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) created widespread confusion about the modern viability of the implied bias doctrine and its relationship to the Sixth Amendment. This case presents the following questions: IL Does the Constitution require selected jurors to be free from implied bias? IL. What standards should apply when assessing an implied bias claim? Ill. Did the Eighth Circuit err in concluding that a juror was not impliedly biased when he had been the victim of a crime nearly identical to the crime alleged at trial? i

Docket Entries

2025-11-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-11-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/21/2025.
2025-10-29
Reply of Jonathan Davis submitted.
2025-10-29
Reply of petitioner Jonathan Davis filed.
2025-10-22
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2025-09-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 22, 2025.
2025-09-15
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2025-09-15
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 22, 2025 to October 22, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-08-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 22, 2025.
2025-08-21
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2025-08-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 22, 2025 to September 22, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-07-23
Response Requested. (Due August 22, 2025)
2025-06-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-06-13
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-06-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-06-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 7, 2025)

Attorneys

Jonathan Davis
Tyler Keith MorganOffice of the Federal Defender, E.D. Missouri, Petitioner
Tyler Keith MorganOffice of the Federal Defender, E.D. Missouri, Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
Moez Mansoor KabaHueston Hennigan LLP, Respondent