NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0034n.06
Case No. 20-1140
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jan 14, 2021 DAVID ANTHONY CAMERON, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF RANDEE REWERTS, Warden, ) MICHIGAN ) Respondent-Appellee. ) )
BEFORE: CLAY, GILMAN, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Brenda Roszkowski managed a set of apartments. When she
served one of her tenants with an eviction notice, the tenant was not happy. So the tenant’s
boyfriend, David Cameron, stepped in. First, Cameron tried to bribe Roszkowski with $300 in
cash. When that didn’t work, Cameron took his gun and went to visit Roszkowski.
Roszkowski wasn’t in her office, so Cameron waited. And when she arrived, he forced her
against a wall, pressed the gun into her face, and threatened her. She pleaded with Cameron, but
he only became more aggressive. He yanked her back by her hair and said he would kill both
Roszkowski and her daughter during his next visit. Cameron gave Roszkowski a kiss. Then he
slammed her face-first into a wall. Roszkowski fell to the floor and lost consciousness; she was
later diagnosed with a concussion and suffered recurring seizures. Case No. 20-1140, Cameron v. Rewerts
After a one-day bench trial, the trial judge found Cameron guilty of assault with intent to
commit murder and two firearms-related crimes. See People v. Cameron, No. 306391, 2013 WL
951213, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2013) (per curiam) (reducing assault conviction to intent
to do great bodily harm). After exhausting his state-court appeals, Cameron raised eight grounds
for relief in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court rejected all eight claims. We
then granted a certificate of appealability on two of the claims: (1) whether Cameron’s right to a
fair trial was violated, and (2) whether Cameron’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.
Both claims lack merit, so we affirm.
I.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) determines when a federal
court can grant habeas relief from a state court’s judgment. Because habeas addresses only
“extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems,” AEDPA’s standards are purposefully
rigorous. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011). To obtain relief under AEDPA, a
petitioner must show that a state court’s decision was either: (1) “contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States,” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d).
Cameron alleges that the Michigan Court of Appeals unreasonably applied federal law. So
we focus exclusively on the first prong of § 2254(d) and ask if the state court’s decision was “so
lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law
beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 103.
-2- Case No. 20-1140, Cameron v. Rewerts
II.
Fair Trial. The Due Process Clause requires a fair trial before a non-biased judge. Bracy
v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904–05 (1997). Cameron’s first claim is that the trial judge was not
impartial.
To explain Cameron’s claim, some brief background is necessary. Shortly after Cameron
waived his right to a jury trial, officers presented Cameron’s trial judge with a search warrant for
Cameron’s home. The search warrant included an affidavit detailing Cameron’s prior convictions
and suspected criminal activity. The trial judge reviewed the affidavit and authorized the search.
Because the search-warrant affidavit contained prejudicial information, Cameron argues
that the trial judge could not later serve as a neutral factfinder. Cameron’s lawyer made this
objection before trial. But the judge attested that he “truly [did] not have an independent
recollection of any of the information . . . in the search warrant” and overruled the objection.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Cameron, 2013 WL 951213, at *5. It concluded
that Cameron failed to show that his right to a fair trial was violated for three reasons: (1) there is
a presumption that trial judges can ignore inadmissible evidence, (2) the trial judge stated that he
didn’t remember the contents of the search-warrant affidavit, and (3) “the record reveal[ed] that
the trial court only considered evidence that was properly admitted.” Id. at *6. Cameron argues
this was an unreasonable application of federal law. We think otherwise.
Our judicial system operates under a fundamental presumption that trial judges are
impartial, even when presented with inadmissible or prejudicial information. Harris v. Rivera,
454 U.S. 339, 346 (1981) (“In bench trials, judges routinely hear inadmissible evidence that they
are presumed to ignore when making decisions.”); Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)
(noting “a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators”). For that reason,
-3- Case No. 20-1140, Cameron v. Rewerts
“[i]t has long been regarded as normal and proper for a judge to sit in the same case upon its
remand, and to sit in successive trials involving the same defendant.” Liteky v. United States, 510
U.S. 540, 551 (1994).
That’s effectively what happened here. The trial judge reviewed the search-warrant
affidavit as part of the investigative proceeding. Though he later presided over Cameron’s bench
trial, it is presumed that he “consider[ed the] evidence” in the affidavit “and then dismiss[ed] it
from [his] mind[].” Coley v. Bagley, 706 F.3d 741, 750 (6th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). The record
shows that was the case here. Before trial, the judge asserted that he did not remember any specific
information in the affidavit. And after trial, he explained in his verdict that he considered only
evidence entered at trial.
Cameron offers two counterarguments. First, Cameron claims that the presumption of
impartiality does not apply because prosecutors sought the search warrant without Cameron’s
counsel present. But he offers no legal authority to support his claim. Second, Cameron argues
that the trial judge’s impartiality is irrelevant. The true question before us, he says, is whether he
voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. But we did not certify that question for appeal as a
freestanding issue, so we will not consider it now. See Abdur’Rahman v. Colson, 649 F.3d 468,
473 (6th Cir. 2011); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
In sum, Cameron has not established that the state court’s fair-trial decision was contrary
to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See Harrington, 562 U.S.
at 103. His first claim therefore fails.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0034n.06
Case No. 20-1140
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jan 14, 2021 DAVID ANTHONY CAMERON, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF RANDEE REWERTS, Warden, ) MICHIGAN ) Respondent-Appellee. ) )
BEFORE: CLAY, GILMAN, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Brenda Roszkowski managed a set of apartments. When she
served one of her tenants with an eviction notice, the tenant was not happy. So the tenant’s
boyfriend, David Cameron, stepped in. First, Cameron tried to bribe Roszkowski with $300 in
cash. When that didn’t work, Cameron took his gun and went to visit Roszkowski.
Roszkowski wasn’t in her office, so Cameron waited. And when she arrived, he forced her
against a wall, pressed the gun into her face, and threatened her. She pleaded with Cameron, but
he only became more aggressive. He yanked her back by her hair and said he would kill both
Roszkowski and her daughter during his next visit. Cameron gave Roszkowski a kiss. Then he
slammed her face-first into a wall. Roszkowski fell to the floor and lost consciousness; she was
later diagnosed with a concussion and suffered recurring seizures. Case No. 20-1140, Cameron v. Rewerts
After a one-day bench trial, the trial judge found Cameron guilty of assault with intent to
commit murder and two firearms-related crimes. See People v. Cameron, No. 306391, 2013 WL
951213, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2013) (per curiam) (reducing assault conviction to intent
to do great bodily harm). After exhausting his state-court appeals, Cameron raised eight grounds
for relief in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court rejected all eight claims. We
then granted a certificate of appealability on two of the claims: (1) whether Cameron’s right to a
fair trial was violated, and (2) whether Cameron’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.
Both claims lack merit, so we affirm.
I.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) determines when a federal
court can grant habeas relief from a state court’s judgment. Because habeas addresses only
“extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems,” AEDPA’s standards are purposefully
rigorous. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011). To obtain relief under AEDPA, a
petitioner must show that a state court’s decision was either: (1) “contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States,” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d).
Cameron alleges that the Michigan Court of Appeals unreasonably applied federal law. So
we focus exclusively on the first prong of § 2254(d) and ask if the state court’s decision was “so
lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law
beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 103.
-2- Case No. 20-1140, Cameron v. Rewerts
II.
Fair Trial. The Due Process Clause requires a fair trial before a non-biased judge. Bracy
v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904–05 (1997). Cameron’s first claim is that the trial judge was not
impartial.
To explain Cameron’s claim, some brief background is necessary. Shortly after Cameron
waived his right to a jury trial, officers presented Cameron’s trial judge with a search warrant for
Cameron’s home. The search warrant included an affidavit detailing Cameron’s prior convictions
and suspected criminal activity. The trial judge reviewed the affidavit and authorized the search.
Because the search-warrant affidavit contained prejudicial information, Cameron argues
that the trial judge could not later serve as a neutral factfinder. Cameron’s lawyer made this
objection before trial. But the judge attested that he “truly [did] not have an independent
recollection of any of the information . . . in the search warrant” and overruled the objection.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Cameron, 2013 WL 951213, at *5. It concluded
that Cameron failed to show that his right to a fair trial was violated for three reasons: (1) there is
a presumption that trial judges can ignore inadmissible evidence, (2) the trial judge stated that he
didn’t remember the contents of the search-warrant affidavit, and (3) “the record reveal[ed] that
the trial court only considered evidence that was properly admitted.” Id. at *6. Cameron argues
this was an unreasonable application of federal law. We think otherwise.
Our judicial system operates under a fundamental presumption that trial judges are
impartial, even when presented with inadmissible or prejudicial information. Harris v. Rivera,
454 U.S. 339, 346 (1981) (“In bench trials, judges routinely hear inadmissible evidence that they
are presumed to ignore when making decisions.”); Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)
(noting “a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators”). For that reason,
-3- Case No. 20-1140, Cameron v. Rewerts
“[i]t has long been regarded as normal and proper for a judge to sit in the same case upon its
remand, and to sit in successive trials involving the same defendant.” Liteky v. United States, 510
U.S. 540, 551 (1994).
That’s effectively what happened here. The trial judge reviewed the search-warrant
affidavit as part of the investigative proceeding. Though he later presided over Cameron’s bench
trial, it is presumed that he “consider[ed the] evidence” in the affidavit “and then dismiss[ed] it
from [his] mind[].” Coley v. Bagley, 706 F.3d 741, 750 (6th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). The record
shows that was the case here. Before trial, the judge asserted that he did not remember any specific
information in the affidavit. And after trial, he explained in his verdict that he considered only
evidence entered at trial.
Cameron offers two counterarguments. First, Cameron claims that the presumption of
impartiality does not apply because prosecutors sought the search warrant without Cameron’s
counsel present. But he offers no legal authority to support his claim. Second, Cameron argues
that the trial judge’s impartiality is irrelevant. The true question before us, he says, is whether he
voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. But we did not certify that question for appeal as a
freestanding issue, so we will not consider it now. See Abdur’Rahman v. Colson, 649 F.3d 468,
473 (6th Cir. 2011); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
In sum, Cameron has not established that the state court’s fair-trial decision was contrary
to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See Harrington, 562 U.S.
at 103. His first claim therefore fails.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Cameron’s second claim is that his trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance. We apply a “highly deferential” standard to ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claims on habeas review. Id. at 105 (citation omitted). If there is “any
-4- Case No. 20-1140, Cameron v. Rewerts
reasonable argument that [Cameron’s] counsel” was “within the wide range of reasonable
professional assistance,” we must deny relief. Id. at 104, 105 (cleaned up).
Cameron argues that his counsel was deficient for three reasons. First, Cameron argues
that his counsel failed to move to withdraw his jury-trial waiver or to have the trial judge recused.
The Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed this claim for two reasons. It presumed that his
counsel’s decision was a strategic choice, and it held that any motion to recuse would have been
futile without evidence that the trial judge was biased. See Cameron, 2013 WL 951213, at *8. We
agree.
Disagreements about trial strategy do not constitute ineffective assistance. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984). Instead, Cameron had to establish that his “counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. And Cameron’s
counsel could have reasonably determined that a bench trial was the best option for several
reasons—Cameron was accused of a violent crime; the trial judge attested that he didn’t remember
any prejudicial information; and given the trial judge’s dismissal of counsel’s initial objection and
the presumption that a trial judge will disregard inadmissible evidence, a formal motion to recuse
likely would have been futile. Cameron’s counsel had “wide latitude” to make these types of
“tactical decisions.” Id. at 689. And none of the contested decisions fell below “an objective
standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688.
Cameron’s second and third reasons fail on procedural grounds. Cameron claims that his
counsel prepared his case the night before trial and failed to advise him about the search-warrant
affidavit or the possibility of withdrawing the jury-trial waiver. But these arguments were not
certified for appeal, so we will not address them. See Colson, 649 F.3d at 473.
-5- Case No. 20-1140, Cameron v. Rewerts
Because Cameron did not establish that his counsel was constitutionally deficient, his
second claim also fails.
We affirm.
-6-