After 30 Years, Race-Biased Conviction Overturned

Striking potential jurors based on race is unconstitutional, reaffirming earlier Supreme Court ruling preventing the use of race in jury selection

Foster v. Chatman, 2016 BL 162869, U.S., No. 14-8349, reversed and remanded 5/23/16

 

    The United States Supreme Court ruled that peremptory jury strikes motivated by race are impermissible, reaffirming the court’s 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky.  Annotations along names of black jurors, such as “Definite No” and “No. No Black Church” were “as clear as a Batson violation as a court is ever going to see.”

    

   The Supreme Court focused on two jurors who were stricken. The state offered 11 neutral, non-race based reasons for striking the first juror and eight reasons for the second juror. The Court, however, found the reasons unconvincing and merely suggested pretext. In the opinion, the Court notes the “focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.” 

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Foster_v_Chatman_No_148349_2016_BL_162869_US_May_23_2016_Court_Op

 

Batson Claim Made Retroactive in 9th Circuit

It is not a new rule that peremptory challenges 'motivated in substantial part' are unconstitutional, it is therefore applicable retroactively.

 

Crittendon v. Chappell, 2015 BL 351088, 9th Cir., 13-17327, 10/26/15

    When reviewing challenges to peremptory juror strikes other circuits have used a 'mixed motives' analysis using other areas of equal protection law. However, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Cook v. LaMarque, 593 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2010) that when judge reviews Batson challenges, they should look at whether the proponent of the strike was 'motivated in substantial part' by race and discriminatory intent.

    The court here determined that the rule announced in Cook is not a new one, and can therefore be used to overturn the defendant's conviction from 1989.  Cook only clarified a rule that already existed, and can, under the Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) test, be applied retroactively.

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Crittenden_v_Chappell_No_1317327_2015_BL_351088_9th_Cir_Oct_26_20

Making Peremptory Jury Strikes Without Defense Counsel Input after Objections Ruled Harmess Error.

 

Prosecutor giving nondiscriminatory reasons for peremptory jury strikes without defense counsel present to discuss objections is a harmless error.

 

Davis v. Ayala, 2015 BL 193518, U.S., No. 1301428

 

 

       A hispanic man convicted of triple homicide by a jury with no black or hispanic people on it is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, in spite of the fact that his attorney was not present to contest the prosecution's claimed nondiscriminatory reasons for striking them.

 

      Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), holds that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits prosecutors from exercising peremptory challenges on the basis of race. Under this precedent, the defense attorney did object to the peremptory strikes of all of the black and hispanic jurors, however, defense counsel was not allowed to participate in the discussions between the judge and the prosecutor that resolved the objections.

 

     The court said "[t]here is no basis for finding that Ayala suffered actual prejudice, and the decision of the California Supreme Court," which affirmed his conviction, was "an entirely reasonable application of controlling precedent."

 

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Davis_v_Ayala_No_131428_2015_BL_193518_US_June_18_2015_Court_Opin