Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bickham v. Winn

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

April 23, 2018

Martez Romal Bickham, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Thomas Winn, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

          Argued: December 7, 2017

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:14-cv-14560-Sean F. Cox, District Judge.

         ARGUED:

          Michael L. Mittlestat, STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant.

          Bruce H. Edwards, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.

         ON BRIEF:

          Michael L. Mittlestat, STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant.

          Bruce H. Edwards, OFFICE OF THE MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee.

          Before: SILER, WHITE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

          OPINION

          SILER, Circuit Judge.

          Petitioner Martez Bickham appeals the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus, in which he argues that the Michigan trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by closing the courtroom during voir dire.

         We affirm the district court's denial of Bickham's petition because he failed to comply with Michigan's contemporaneous-objection rule and is, therefore, procedurally barred from pursuing his Sixth Amendment habeas claim.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Following a jury trial in Michigan state court, Bickham was convicted of second-degree murder, armed robbery, assault with intent to commit armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. As voir dire was about to commence at Bickham's trial, court officers began to clear the public from the courtroom. Bickham's counsel objected to the public's removal, citing Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010), which established that a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is violated when a trial court excludes the public from jury selection. In response to Bickham's objection, the trial court stated:

The Court is not excluding people from being in the courtroom. Right now the deputies are removing the spectators or people who are in the courtroom in order to allow . . . the jury panel of over fifty people be allowed in, and so that they are not intermixed with the audience, and so once the whole panel is in, those who fit separately from the jury can be allowed in. But we cannot bring a jury in with the number of people in this courtroom. They fill the bleachers, and in order to conduct voir dire, we need the jury panel to fit into the courtroom.
[BICKHAM'S COUNSEL]: I understand, Judge, I just wanted to bring that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.