Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03406/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03406-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3406

___________

Richard Cox, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 18, 2006

Filed: April 24, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

During jury voir dire before Richard Cox’s capital murder trial in Arkansas

state court, prospective juror Dorothy Caddell, an African-American woman, was

removed by peremptory challenge. Caddell had stated she could not impose the death

penalty on a sixteen-year old, Cox’s age at the time, and stated she had previously

served on a jury that had acquitted a defendant after a trial involving the same

prosecutor. White prospective jurors who expressed reluctance about imposing the

death penalty were likewise removed. At the time Caddell was stricken, only seven

jurors had been seated. Four African-Americans had been excluded by the court or

by agreement of the parties, and four more remained to be questioned. When defense

Appellate Case: 05-3406 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036360
*

The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-2-

counsel challenged the removal of Caddell under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79

(1986), the court stated Cox had not made a prima facie showing of discrimination,

so the prosecutor was not required to articulate a race-neutral reason for the strike.

See Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-98. The court observed there was no reason to draw an

inference of discriminatory intent in the prosecutor’s peremptory challenge. On the

contrary, there was ample reason for the peremptory strike based on Caddell’s

responses during voir dire. 

An all-White jury convicted Cox of capital murder. Cox appealed his conviction

to the Arkansas Supreme Court, claiming the trial court committed error in not

requiring a race-neutral explanation for the prosecution’s peremptory challenge of

Caddell. The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected the claim on the merits and affirmed

Cox’s conviction, holding the striking of Caddell was insufficient to prove a pattern

or process to exclude jurors because of their race. Cox v. State, 47 S.W.3d 244, 255-

56 (Ark. 2001). 

Cox then filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action asserting he was denied due

process when the trial court rejected his challenge to Caddell’s removal. In a thorough

published opinion, the district court*

 denied relief. Cox v. Norris, No.

5:02CV00234JWC, 2005 WL 1922634 (E.D. Ark. July 19, 2005). The court

concluded Cox had not rebutted the state courts’ decision that he failed to establish a

prima facie case of discrimination, so the prosecutor was not obliged to offer a raceneutral explanation for the strike. Id. at *9. The court held the Arkansas Supreme

Court’s decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, and was

not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Batson v. Kentucky, or any other

Supreme Court precedent. Id. Thus, Cox was not entitled to habeas relief. Id.; see

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

Appellate Case: 05-3406 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036360
-3-

Cox now appeals the denial of his habeas petition. We review the district

court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Hall v.

Luebbers, 341 F.3d 706, 712 (8th Cir. 2003). Cox does not challenge the pertinent

facts and law set forth by the district court. Instead, Cox disputes only whether the

trial court should have drawn an inference that the challenge to Caddell was based on

race. The state court’s finding that no inference was warranted is a factual

determination entitled to a presumption of correctness unless overcome by clear and

convincing evidence. Id. at 713. We agree with the district court that Cox failed to

overcome the presumption. Thus, Cox’s Batson claim fails, and Cox is not entitled

to habeas relief on the claim. 

We decline to consider Cox’s remaining arguments, which were not raised in

the district court or included in the certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we affirm

the denial of Cox’s habeas petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3406 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036360