⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

A Maryland jury convicted Jeremiah Sweeney of murder after a nighttime shooting where it was disputed whether he could have fired from roughly seventy-five yards away. During the trial, one juror visited the crime scene on his own and told fellow jurors about it; the judge dismissed him, and the remaining eleven convicted Sweeney. Sweeney later challenged his state conviction in federal court, arguing that his trial lawyer should have investigated what the juror told the others before agreeing to continue. The Fourth Circuit initially ordered a new trial on broader constitutional grounds, but the Supreme Court reversed because the parties had not argued those grounds. Now the court must revisit his lawyer's performance and whether that failure could have affected the verdict, under strict federal limits on challenging state convictions. Jackson Skeen of Hogan Lovells represents Sweeney and will argue that proceeding without a fuller juror inquiry denied him an impartial jury.

Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney v. Damean Stewart (No. 22-6513) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026.