United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED May 21, 2021 No. 18-10431 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Jerry Lee Canfield,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CV-1000

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Higginbotham and Willett, Circuit Judges. Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge: Jerry Lee Canfield was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child—his daughter—and sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment. In seeking habeas relief, Canfield argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to investigate and challenge a juror who demonstrated impartiality during voir dire. The district court affirmed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ denial of Canfield’s habeas claims, and we affirm the district court. Case: 18-10431 Document: 00515872298 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2021

No. 18-10431

A In July 2011, Canfield sent his then-seven-year-old daughter, M.C., and five-year-old son, C.C., to stay with his aunt and uncle—Ronda and Michael Canfield—in Bedford, Texas. About six months later, Canfield called to say he would be returning to pick up his children. At that time, Ronda and her adult daughter decided they needed to address M.C.’s poor hygiene before she returned to her father and was no longer in the care of a woman. They instructed M.C. on self-care and advised her to tell an adult if anyone touches her body in a way that makes her uncomfortable. M.C. then told her aunt and cousin that her father had touched her “private parts” and made her touch his. M.C. then told Michael the same thing. Michael and Ronda called child protective services. The police arrested Canfield, charging him with continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of fourteen. The State alleged that Canfield engaged in at least two sex acts with M.C. over a period of at least 30 days between May 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010. Canfield took his case to trial. During voir dire, the prosecutor asked all 60 potential jurors—who knew the case involved sexual abuse of a child—whether they already believed Canfield was guilty. After juror M.T. raised her hand, she and the prosecutor had the following exchange: PROSECUTOR: . . . Tell me why. [M.T.]: I don’t know. I have an autistic grandson who cannot talk, and we’ll never know, but we think something might have happened at the last autism program that he was in. My grandson cannot talk. We will never know. I’m sorry. This is just creeping me out really, really bad, being here. And just— I’m freaking out.

2 Case: 18-10431 Document: 00515872298 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/21/2021

No. 18-10431

PROSECUTOR: Okay. Let me ask you this: If we don’t prove him guilty, if we don’t prove it beyond