John Henry Epps v. State of Iowa

Summary

Black habeas petitioner challenged his Iowa felony-murder conviction, arguing that a change of venue to a county with virtually no black residents denied him a fair and impartial jury, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial comments. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief, holding that even if the venue change violated equal protection, that would be a new constitutional rule inapplicable on habeas review under *Teague v. Lane*. The court also found that the ineffective assistance claims were either procedurally barred or meritless because the prosecutor's comments were not improper. This case addresses venue and jury composition under the Equal Protection Clause, retroactivity of new constitutional rules, procedural default, and ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of prosecutorial comments.

Holdings

1. The change of venue did not violate Epps's constitutional rights because no existing precedent supported such a conclusion, and any new rule would not apply retroactively on habeas review.
2. Trial counsel was not ineffective because the comments were not improper; the comments about the felony record were first raised by defense counsel, the comment about lack of reaction was not a comment on failure to testify, and the comments about alibi witnesses were directed to the evidence and not impermissible.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the change of venue to a county with almost no black residents violated Epps's constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's comments during closing argument regarding Epps's prior felony, his lack of reaction to identification, and the absence of alibi witnesses.

Disposition

affirmed