Ambrose v. Booker

Filing 83

ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date. (Petitioner's Supplemental Brief due by 6/21/2013; Response due 7/12/2013; Reply due 7/19/2013, Evidentiary Hearing set for 7/29/2013 09:30 AM before District Judge Thomas L. Ludington) Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH AMBROSE,
Petitioner,

Case No. 06-13361
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

v.
RAYMOND D. BOOKER,
Respondent,
____________________________________/

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Joseph Ambrose was convicted by a Kent County jury of two counts of armed robbery,
one count of carjacking, and one count of felony-firearm possession. But a computer glitch
resulted in a jury venire with a statistically significant “underrepresentation of minorities.”
Ambrose v. Booker, 684 F.3d 638, 641 (6th Cir. 2012). As a result, on March 10, 2011, this
Court conditionally granted Ambrose’s habeas petition after finding that his right to be tried by a
jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community had been violated.
The Sixth Circuit required more. The court reversed the grant of Ambrose’s habeas
petition and remanded the case, requiring that Ambrose demonstrate he suffered “actual
prejudice.” In other words, Ambrose must demonstrate “a reasonable probability that ‘a properly
selected jury [would] have been less likely to convict.’ ” Id. at 652 (quoting Hollis v. Davis, 941
F.2d 1471, 1480 (11th Cir. 1991)). It follows that to succeed on his habeas petition, Ambrose
must satisfy the “particularly challenging charge” of answering the question “what would have
happened?” had his jury panel been properly selected. Ambrose, 684 F.3d at 652. The Sixth
Circuit directed that the question be answered “with a careful look at the transcripts involved,
and with judgment that takes into account a fair balance of the competing interests of comity

toward the final judgments of the state’s criminal processes and the protection of constitutional
equal protection interests.” Id.
The case was reopened, and the Court conducted a telephonic status conference on May
30, 2013 with counsel. During that time, a briefing schedule was established to determine
whether Ambrose can satisfy the requirement the Sixth Circuit has explained.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner is DIRECTED to file his supplemental
brief concerning whether he suffered “actual prejudice” by June 21, 2013.
It is further ORDERED that Respondent is DIRECTED to file a responsive
supplemental brief concerning the issue no later than July 12, 2013.
It is further ORDERED that Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a reply brief by July 19,
2013.
It is further ORDERED that an evidentiary hearing is scheduled for July 29, 2013 at
9:30 a.m.
Dated: June 3, 2013

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing
order was served upon each attorney or party of record
herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on June
3, 2013.
s/Tracy A. Jacobs
TRACY A. JACOBS

-2-