Stermer v. Warren

Filing 80

ORDER MODIFYING TERMS OF CONDITIONAL WRIT. The Court modifies the terms of the conditional writ set forth in the Order Granting Stay (ECF No. 70) to allow Respondent an additional NINETY DAYS to schedule a new trial or unconditionally release Petitioner. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (McColley, N)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LINDA STERMER,
Petitioner,

Case Number: 2:12-14013
Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

v.
MILLICENT WARREN,
Respondent.
/
ORDER MODIFYING TERMS OF CONDITIONAL WRIT
On December 20, 2018, the Court granted Petitioner Linda Stermer a conditional
writ of habeas corpus. The Court ordered that “[u]nless a new trial is scheduled within
120 days, Petitioner must be unconditionally released.” Stermer v. Warren, 360 F. Supp.
3d 639, 670 (E.D. Mich. 2018). On April 3, 2019, the Court granted Respondent’s
motion for a stay pending an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and modified
the terms of the conditional writ to provide:
The Court ORDERS that, if the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms this
Court’s judgment conditionally granting a writ of habeas corpus, the stay
shall automatically be lifted and the state must schedule a new trial within
NINETY DAYS of issuance of the mandate or Petitioner shall be
unconditionally released.
(ECF No. 70, PageID.3618.)
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of a conditional writ,
Stermer v. Warren, 959 F.3d 704 (6th Cir. 2020), and the mandate issued on June 8,

2020. (ECF No. 74.) To comply with the terms of the conditional writ, a new trial must
be scheduled by September 6, 2020, or Petitioner must be unconditionally released.
The Court set the ninety-day deadline for retrying or releasing Petitioner in April
2019, well before the COVID-19 pandemic emerged. The Court could not and did not
foresee this crisis or the resulting temporary suspension of jury trials in many
jurisdictions, including Van Buren County Circuit Court. In light of this ongoing and
unprecedented public health emergency, the Court will modify the conditional writ and
allow the state an additional ninety days beyond the original ninety-day time period to
schedule a new trial or unconditionally release Petitioner.1
If Petitioner’s conviction is vacated in state court within the prescribed time
period, the terms of the conditional writ would be satisfied because Petitioner would no
longer be held pursuant to an unconstitutional conviction. See Eddleman v. McKee, 586
F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[O]nce the unconstitutional judgment is gone, so too is
federal jurisdiction under § 2254.”).
Finally, in a recently filed motion or relief from judgment, Petitioner argues that
this Court should bar reprosecution in this case. The Court will address the merits of

The Court recognizes the steps the state trial court has taken to prepare for a timely
retrial in this case. (ECF No. 78-4, PageID.3809-3811.) The Court assumes integrity and
competence on the part of state-court judges and nothing in the state court record before
the Court rebuts those assumptions. See Eddleman, 586 F.3d at 413 (“The premise of
federal habeas review is that state-court judges (like federal ones) sometimes make
constitutional mistakes-not that they are any less conscientious in discharging their oaths
than federal judges are.”).
1

2

Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment, including a determination as to
reprosecution, in a separate order.
Accordingly, the Court modifies the terms of the conditional writ set forth in the
Order Granting Stay (ECF No. 70) to allow Respondent an additional NINETY DAYS to
schedule a new trial or unconditionally release Petitioner.

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 27, 2020

3