Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 1 of 13
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _________________________
No. 17-14027-P _________________________
KEITH THARPE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Respondent – Appellee.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia __________________________
Before: TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
This facts and procedural history of this case have been exhaustively
described in numerous opinions and orders. See, e.g., Tharpe v. Sellers, 583 U.S.
___, 138 S. Ct. 545 (2018); Tharpe v. Warden, 834 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2016);
Tharpe v. State, 416 S.E.2d 78 (Ga. 1992). We write only to decide whether our Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 2 of 13
April 3, 2018 Order denying a certificate of appealability (“COA”) should be
reconsidered. We conclude that it should not.
We have been made aware that Keith Tharpe exhausted his juror racial bias
claim in Georgia state courts. See Tharpe v. Sellers, No. S18W0242 (Ga. Nov. 2,
2017); Tharpe v. Sellers, No. S18W0242 (Ga. Sept. 26, 2017). But he is not
entitled to a COA for two distinct reasons. First, his claim arises from the rule
announced in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017),
and that rule does not apply retroactively. Second, he has failed to show cause to
overcome his procedural default. For these two independent reasons—either of
which, standing alone, would suffice to deny a COA—our decision denying his
motion for COA is not due for reconsideration.
I.
Federal habeas corpus review “serves to ensure that state convictions
comport with the federal law that was established at the time petitioner’s
conviction became final.” Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 239, 110 S. Ct. 2822,
2830 (1990). “[N]ew constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be
applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are
announced.” Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 1075 (1989).
“To apply Teague, a federal court engages in a three-step process.” Lambrix v.
Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 527, 117 S. Ct. 1517, 1524 (1997).
2 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 3 of 13
Teague’s three steps, as instructed by the Supreme Court, are as follows.
First, the court must determine the date on which the defendant’s conviction
became final. Id. Second, the court “must survey the legal landscape as it then
existed and determine whether a state court considering the defendant’s claim at
the time his conviction became final would have felt compelled by existing
precedent to conclude that the rule he seeks was required by the Constitution.” Id.
(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added). If the legal rule forming the
basis of the claim “was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the
defendant’s conviction became final,” Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 416,
127 S. Ct. 1173, 1181 (2007) (quotation omitted) (emphasis added), or if it would
not have been “apparent to all reasonable jurists” at that time, Chaidez v. United
States, 568 U.S. 342, 347, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1107 (2013) (quotation omitted), then
Teague precludes application of that rule on collateral review, absent an exception.
The third step of Teague’s analysis, though, is to determine if such an
exception applies. Only two possible exceptions exist: (1) for new substantive
rules that place “certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the
power” of criminal law, or (2) for new “watershed rules of criminal procedure.”
Teague, 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S. Ct. at 1075–76 (quotation omitted).
Working our way through Teague, Tharpe’s conviction became final on
October 19, 1992, the date on which the Supreme Court denied certiorari. See
3 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 4 of 13
Bond v. Moore, 309 F.3d 770, 773 (11th Cir. 2002). It is immediately apparent
that a claim grounded in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, a decision handed down
nearly twenty-five years later on March 6, 2017, will likely fail to clear Teague’s
hurdles. Indeed, Pena-Rodriguez cannot apply to Tharpe’s habeas claim because,
before Pena-Rodriguez, no precedent established that proof of a juror’s racial
animus created a Sixth Amendment exception to the no-impeachment rule.
If anything, clearly-established precedent held just the opposite. In Tanner
v. United States, the Supreme Court explained that “[b]y the beginning of [the
twentieth] century, if not earlier, the near-universal and firmly established
common-law rule in the United States flatly prohibited the admission of juror
testimony to impeach a jury verdict.” 483 U.S. 107, 117, 107 S. Ct. 2739, 2745
(1987). And, as the Supreme Court noted in Pena-Rodriguez, “[a]t common law[,]
jurors were forbidden to impeach their verdict, either by affidavit or live
testimony.” 137 S. Ct. at 863 (citing Vaise v. Delaval, 1 T.R. 11, 99 Eng. Rep. 944
(K.B. 1785)).
The Supreme Court endorsed the no-impeachment rule’s breadth in
McDonald v. Pless, when it noted that “a change in the [no-impeachment] rule
would open the door to the most pernicious arts and tampering with jurors[,] . . .
would be replete with dangerous consequences[,] . . . and no verdict would be
safe.” 238 U.S. 264, 268, 35 S. Ct. 783, 784–85 (1915) (quotations omitted).
4 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 5 of 13
Congress likewise embraced the no-impeachment rule by incorporating it into
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)(1), which reads this way:
During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.
See Pena-Rodriguez, 137 S. Ct. at 864.
Before Pena-Rodriguez, the Supreme Court twice addressed whether the no-
impeachment rule contained a constitutional exception. Id. at 866–67 (citing
Tanner, 483 U.S. at 125, 107 S. Ct. at 2750; Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. ___, 135
S. Ct. 521, 529 (2014)). Each time, the Supreme Court concluded it did not. Id.
For that reason, Pena-Rodriguez was a “startling development” because “for the
first time, the Court create[d] a constitutional exception to no-impeachment rules.”
Id. at 875, 879 (Alito, J., dissenting).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 1 of 13
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _________________________
No. 17-14027-P _________________________
KEITH THARPE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Respondent – Appellee.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia __________________________
Before: TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
This facts and procedural history of this case have been exhaustively
described in numerous opinions and orders. See, e.g., Tharpe v. Sellers, 583 U.S.
___, 138 S. Ct. 545 (2018); Tharpe v. Warden, 834 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2016);
Tharpe v. State, 416 S.E.2d 78 (Ga. 1992). We write only to decide whether our Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 2 of 13
April 3, 2018 Order denying a certificate of appealability (“COA”) should be
reconsidered. We conclude that it should not.
We have been made aware that Keith Tharpe exhausted his juror racial bias
claim in Georgia state courts. See Tharpe v. Sellers, No. S18W0242 (Ga. Nov. 2,
2017); Tharpe v. Sellers, No. S18W0242 (Ga. Sept. 26, 2017). But he is not
entitled to a COA for two distinct reasons. First, his claim arises from the rule
announced in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017),
and that rule does not apply retroactively. Second, he has failed to show cause to
overcome his procedural default. For these two independent reasons—either of
which, standing alone, would suffice to deny a COA—our decision denying his
motion for COA is not due for reconsideration.
I.
Federal habeas corpus review “serves to ensure that state convictions
comport with the federal law that was established at the time petitioner’s
conviction became final.” Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 239, 110 S. Ct. 2822,
2830 (1990). “[N]ew constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be
applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are
announced.” Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 1075 (1989).
“To apply Teague, a federal court engages in a three-step process.” Lambrix v.
Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 527, 117 S. Ct. 1517, 1524 (1997).
2 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 3 of 13
Teague’s three steps, as instructed by the Supreme Court, are as follows.
First, the court must determine the date on which the defendant’s conviction
became final. Id. Second, the court “must survey the legal landscape as it then
existed and determine whether a state court considering the defendant’s claim at
the time his conviction became final would have felt compelled by existing
precedent to conclude that the rule he seeks was required by the Constitution.” Id.
(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added). If the legal rule forming the
basis of the claim “was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the
defendant’s conviction became final,” Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 416,
127 S. Ct. 1173, 1181 (2007) (quotation omitted) (emphasis added), or if it would
not have been “apparent to all reasonable jurists” at that time, Chaidez v. United
States, 568 U.S. 342, 347, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1107 (2013) (quotation omitted), then
Teague precludes application of that rule on collateral review, absent an exception.
The third step of Teague’s analysis, though, is to determine if such an
exception applies. Only two possible exceptions exist: (1) for new substantive
rules that place “certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the
power” of criminal law, or (2) for new “watershed rules of criminal procedure.”
Teague, 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S. Ct. at 1075–76 (quotation omitted).
Working our way through Teague, Tharpe’s conviction became final on
October 19, 1992, the date on which the Supreme Court denied certiorari. See
3 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 4 of 13
Bond v. Moore, 309 F.3d 770, 773 (11th Cir. 2002). It is immediately apparent
that a claim grounded in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, a decision handed down
nearly twenty-five years later on March 6, 2017, will likely fail to clear Teague’s
hurdles. Indeed, Pena-Rodriguez cannot apply to Tharpe’s habeas claim because,
before Pena-Rodriguez, no precedent established that proof of a juror’s racial
animus created a Sixth Amendment exception to the no-impeachment rule.
If anything, clearly-established precedent held just the opposite. In Tanner
v. United States, the Supreme Court explained that “[b]y the beginning of [the
twentieth] century, if not earlier, the near-universal and firmly established
common-law rule in the United States flatly prohibited the admission of juror
testimony to impeach a jury verdict.” 483 U.S. 107, 117, 107 S. Ct. 2739, 2745
(1987). And, as the Supreme Court noted in Pena-Rodriguez, “[a]t common law[,]
jurors were forbidden to impeach their verdict, either by affidavit or live
testimony.” 137 S. Ct. at 863 (citing Vaise v. Delaval, 1 T.R. 11, 99 Eng. Rep. 944
(K.B. 1785)).
The Supreme Court endorsed the no-impeachment rule’s breadth in
McDonald v. Pless, when it noted that “a change in the [no-impeachment] rule
would open the door to the most pernicious arts and tampering with jurors[,] . . .
would be replete with dangerous consequences[,] . . . and no verdict would be
safe.” 238 U.S. 264, 268, 35 S. Ct. 783, 784–85 (1915) (quotations omitted).
4 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 5 of 13
Congress likewise embraced the no-impeachment rule by incorporating it into
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)(1), which reads this way:
During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.
See Pena-Rodriguez, 137 S. Ct. at 864.
Before Pena-Rodriguez, the Supreme Court twice addressed whether the no-
impeachment rule contained a constitutional exception. Id. at 866–67 (citing
Tanner, 483 U.S. at 125, 107 S. Ct. at 2750; Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. ___, 135
S. Ct. 521, 529 (2014)). Each time, the Supreme Court concluded it did not. Id.
For that reason, Pena-Rodriguez was a “startling development” because “for the
first time, the Court create[d] a constitutional exception to no-impeachment rules.”
Id. at 875, 879 (Alito, J., dissenting).
Since Pena-Rodriguez established a new rule that was neither “dictated” nor
“apparent to all reasonable jurists” at the time of Tharpe’s conviction, we must
determine whether it fits within one of Teague’s two retroactivity exceptions. We
conclude it does not. First, the rule announced in Pena-Rodriguez is not a
substantive one because it neither “decriminalizes a class of conduct nor prohibits
the imposition of capital punishment on a particular class of persons.” Lambrix,
520 U.S. at 539, 117 S. Ct. at 1531 (quotation omitted). Tharpe nonetheless cited 5 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 6 of 13
Bradford v. Bruno’s, Inc., 94 F.3d 621, 622 (11th Cir. 1996), and Ungerleider v.
Gordon, 214 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2000), for the proposition that Pena-
Rodriguez decreed a substantive rule. Yet those cases had nothing to do with
either the no-impeachment rule or Teague retroactivity. Rather, they addressed
whether wholly different state rules of evidence were substantive for purposes of
the Erie doctrine.1 Bradford, 94 F.3d at 622; Ungerleider, 214 F.3d at 1282.
Because the inquiry into whether a rule is substantive under Teague is
utterly distinct from whether it is substantive under Erie, no reasonable jurist could
accept Tharpe’s argument. Rather, the rule in Pena-Rodriguez is plainly
procedural in nature; it regulates only the manner of determining the defendant’s
culpability and concerns a procedural mechanism by which to challenge a jury
verdict. It does not satisfy Teague’s first exception for retroactivity.
Additionally, the Pena-Rodriguez rule is not a watershed rule of criminal
procedure that would satisfy Teague’s second exception. This exception “is
extremely narrow, and it is unlikely” that any class of rules satisfying it has “yet to
emerge” since Teague. Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 352, 124 S. Ct. 2519,
2523 (2004) (quotation omitted). “[T]he paradigmatic example of a watershed rule
of criminal procedure is the requirement that counsel be provided in all criminal
trials for serious offenses.” Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 170, 116 S. Ct.
1 Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817 (1938). 6 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 7 of 13
2074, 2085 (1996) (citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792
(1963)). “[R]ules that regulate only the manner of determining the defendant’s
culpability are procedural,” and thus apply retroactively to collateral proceedings
only if they are exceedingly rare “watershed[s]” akin to Gideon. Schriro, 542 U.S.
at 353, 124 S. Ct. at 2523. In light of this exceedingly high bar, even Tharpe
himself does not argue that Pena-Rodriguez’s rule is such a watershed.
Because a state court in October 1992 would not have felt that the rule
announced in Pena-Rodriguez was required by then-existing precedent, and
because the Pena-Rodriguez rule is neither a new substantive rule that places
primary conduct beyond the power of criminal law nor a watershed rule of criminal
procedure, Teague bars Tharpe’s claim. See Tharpe, 138 S. Ct. at 551 (Thomas, J.,
dissenting) (“[N]o reasonable jurist could argue that Pena-Rodriguez applies
retroactively on collateral review.”). This alone would be enough reason to deny
Tharpe’s motion for a COA and accordingly his motion for reconsideration.
However, there exists a second, independent reason: Tharpe failed to show cause
for his procedural default.
II.
The procedural default rule is clear. It provides that “[f]ederal courts may
not review a claim procedurally defaulted under state law if the last state court to
review the claim states clearly and expressly that its judgment rests on a procedural
7 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 8 of 13
bar, and the bar presents an independent and adequate state ground for denying
relief.” Hill v. Jones, 81 F.3d 1015, 1022 (11th Cir. 1996). A federal court cannot
review a procedurally defaulted claim unless the petitioner can show cause for the
failure to properly present the claim and actual prejudice. Wainwright v. Sykes,
433 U.S. 72, 87, 97 S. Ct. 2497, 2506–07 (1977). “To establish ‘cause’ for a
procedural default, a petitioner must demonstrate that some objective factor
external to the defense impeded the effort to raise the claim properly in the state
court.” Wright v. Hopper, 169 F.3d 695, 703 (11th Cir. 1999). “[A]llegations
[supporting cause and prejudice] must be factual and specific, not conclusory.”
Harris v. Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 874 F.3d 682, 691 (11th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Chavez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1061 (11th Cir.
2011)).
The Georgia courts have unambiguously held that Tharpe’s juror racial bias
claim was procedurally defaulted. The Superior Court of Butts County ruled that
“even if [Tharpe] had admissible evidence to support his claim of juror
misconduct, this Court finds that the claims are procedurally defaulted as [Tharpe]
failed to raise them at the motion for new trial or on appeal.” Tharpe v. Hall, No.
93-V-144, at 102 (Ga. Super. Ct. Dec. 1, 2008). After Tharpe returned to state
court following Pena-Rodriguez, the Superior Court again held that Tharpe’s claim
“is still procedurally defaulted.” Pet’r’s Mot. for Recons. Ex. A at 4. Again, the
8 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 9 of 13
Supreme Court of Georgia refused to review the claim. Id. Ex. B. Since Tharpe’s
juror racial bias claim was procedurally defaulted, and since the Supreme Court of
the United States held that Barney Gattie’s affidavit would permit jurists of reason
to dispute whether Tharpe demonstrated prejudice, see Tharpe, 138 S. Ct. at 546,
the only question is whether Tharpe arguably proved cause.
To prove cause, Tharpe alleged only, and at the highest order of abstraction,
that “trial counsel [was] ineffective in failing to raise meritorious claims on appeal,
and that trial counsel’s ineffectiveness constitutes cause to excuse any procedural
default.” He alleged no specific facts. Indeed, he alleged nothing at all. The state
court rejected the argument as a bare, conclusory assertion. The District Court
agreed, noting “[p]etitioner, unfortunately, fails to provide any details regarding
[the] allegation . . . that his trial and appellate attorneys were ineffective[, thereby
establishing] cause to overcome [his] defaults.” Tharpe v. Humphrey, No. 5:10-
CV-433, at 9 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 18, 2011). Because Tharpe’s attempt to show cause
is wholly unsubstantiated, he has failed to make the requisite showing of cause to
overcome his procedural default. See Tharpe, 138 S. Ct. at 552 (Thomas, J.,
dissenting) (“[N]o reasonable jurist could argue that Tharpe demonstrated cause
for his procedural default.”).
9 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 10 of 13
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we deny Keith Tharpe’s motion for
reconsideration of the April 3, 2018 Order denying a COA.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED.
10 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 11 of 13
WILSON, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
I am persuaded that Mr. Tharpe’s application for a COA should be denied
because Peña-Rodriguez1 does not apply retroactively under the Teague 2 analysis.
After working through the first two steps of Teague’s framework, it is clear
that Tharpe cannot show that existing precedent dictated Peña-Rodriguez. Thus,
Tharpe’s only other available option is to claim that Peña-Rodriguez meets one of
the two exceptions to Teague’s bar—the second exception, declaring that it is a
new watershed rule of criminal procedure, being the most plausible. This
exception, though, is extremely narrow and has not been used to this day. See
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 352 (2004) (The exception is reserved for
“only a small set of watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the
fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding. . . . [A] new
procedural rule [being] fundamental in some abstract sense is not enough; the rule
must be one without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously
diminished. . . . [However] [t]his class of rules is extremely narrow, and it is
unlikely that any has yet to emerge.” (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted)). Again, this avenue is so rare that, as the Order points out, even Tharpe
himself has not made this argument.
1 Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017). 2 Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S. Ct. 1060 (1989). Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 12 of 13
In addition, I disapprove of the lackadaisical treatment of Mr. Gattie’s
original affidavit. The statements and beliefs contained in the affidavit were not
“offhand comments” by any means. See Tharpe v. Warden, No. 17-14027-P, slip
op. at 5–7 (11th Cir. Sep. 21, 2017) (laying out the district court’s reasoning
regarding Mr. Gattie’s affidavit which was easily disavowed by the Supreme Court
in Tharpe v. Sellers, 583 U.S. ___, ___, 138 S. Ct. 545, 545–46 (2018)). To the
contrary, Gattie’s repugnant comments were rife with racial slurs; deeply seeded
views regarding integration, interracial marriage, and the like; a comment inquiring
whether black people even had souls; and even an explicit statement that the
juror’s decision to sentence Tharpe to death was at least, in part, based on race.3
3 The juror in question, Juror Gattie, said the following in his affidavit:
I . . . knew the girl who was killed, Mrs. Freeman. Her husband and his family have lived in Jones [C]ounty a long time. The Freemans are what I would call a nice Black family. In my experience I have observed that there are two types of black people. 1. Black folks and 2. Niggers. For example, some of them who hang around our little store act up and carry on. I tell them, “nigger, you better straighten up or get out of here fast.” My wife tells me I am going to be shot by one of them one day if I don’t quit saying that. I am an upfront, plainspoken man, though. Like I said, the Freemans were nice black folks. If they had been the type Tharpe is, then picking between life or death for Tharpe wouldn’t have mattered so much. My feeling is, what would be the difference. As it was, because I knew the victim and her husband’s family and knew them all to be good black folks, I felt Tharpe, who wasn’t in the “good” black folks category in my book, should get the electric chair for what he did. Some of the jurors voted for death because they felt that Tharpe should be an example to other blacks who kill blacks, but that wasn’t my reason. The others wanted blacks to know they weren’t going to get away with killing 12 Case: 17-14027 Date Filed: 08/10/2018 Page: 13 of 13
Over the long course of this procedurally complex case, it is easy to gloss
over our improper treatment of Mr. Gattie’s original affidavit, but it is something
that I want to acknowledge. Absent intervention from the Supreme Court, it seems
that we would have approved of the idea that Mr. Gattie’s affidavit would not have
amounted to prejudice. I do not stand by that idea, or our court’s treatment of the
affidavit. As a factual matter, the statements contained therein clearly indicate a
reliance on racial animus to convict or sentence a defendant.
each other. After studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even have souls. Integration started in Genesis. I think they were wrong. For example, look at O.J. Simpson. That white woman wouldn’t have been killed if she hadn’t have married that black man. 13