Tony Daugherty was convicted in 2004 of sexually abusing his son in West Virginia state court. After trial, it was discovered that during deliberations, Juror McBride told other jurors he knew Daugherty's family and feared what might happen to them if Daugherty were acquitted. Four jurors confirmed McBride made these statements, though McBride denied knowing Daugherty or his family.
Senior Judge Floyd wrote that McBride's comments 'came from his own mental machinations, whether true or not,' distinguishing them from Supreme Court precedent finding external influence in cases involving third-party bribery attempts or communications from court officials. The court explained that the comments 'did not originate from any communication with other individuals during the trial and they did not originate from non-jury figures, such as law enforcement officers or bailiffs.'
Daugherty unsuccessfully sought a new trial in West Virginia state court, with the state supreme court finding the comments were intrinsic to deliberations. He then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254, which the Southern District of West Virginia denied. The district court concluded the state court did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent in finding the juror's statements were internal rather than external influences.
The decision reinforces the narrow scope of what constitutes external jury influence under Supreme Court precedent. The Fourth Circuit noted that as of 2006, when the state court decided the case, 'the Supreme Court ha[d] never provided a formula for deciding whether a particular influence upon the jury was external or internal,' limiting clearly established law to cases involving third-party tampering or communications from court officials.