Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01122/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01122-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 84 n.4 (1986) (Equal Protection Clause

forbids the challenging of potential jurors solely on account of their race).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WARREN E. BLAKE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

CONNIE MERRILL, Chief Probation

Officer, Del Norte County, et al., 

Respondent. /

No. C 07-1122 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

This is a habeas corpus case filed pro se by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. In 2006, a jury in Del Norte County Superior Court convicted petitioner of driving

while intoxicated. His sentence of 192 days in county jail was suspended and he was

placed on probation. He did not appeal, but his state habeas petition was denied by the

California Supreme Court on January 24, 2007.

In his federal petition, petitioner raised two claims: that the trial court lacked

jurisdiction, and that the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike the only Native

American prospective juror, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.1

 This court entered

an order denying the first claim, regarding jurisdiction, but concluded that the record was

not sufficient to allow it to rule on the second claim. Respondent was ordered to provide

“all portions of the state trial record relating to the selection of jurors, including the entire

Case 4:07-cv-01122-PJH Document 12 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Petitioner has not filed a formal opposition to respondent’s supplemental filings, but

has written to the court saying that respondent did not provide jury questionnaires or any

other information about the racial composition of the jury. Respondent has provided the full

transcript of voir dire and a copy of the clerk’s file; she says that there were no jury

questionnaires, and none are in the clerk’s file. Although petitioner contends he did not

receive the full transcript of voir dire, he concedes receiving the portion covering the

examination of the prospective juror who worked for the Yurok tribe. In the circumstances

of this case, the court concludes that the response to the court’s order was adequate. 

2

voir dire transcript, any jury questionnaires, and any records relating to the composition of

 the prospective jurors and the jury that served at trial.” Respondent has done so.2

 The transcript of voir dire shows that (1) defense counsel asked the court not to ask

the prospective jurors any questions about race, Supp. Ex. 2, Vol. 1, at 6; (2) contrary to

petitioner’s unsupported allegations, there is no evidence in the record of the race or

ethnicity of the juror in question, only evidence that she worked for the Yurok tribe, id. at

124-28; and (3) defense counsel did not object to the prosecution’s strike of the prospective

juror in question, possibly because her fiancé had been arrested and prosecuted for driving

under the influence, the crime with which petitioner was charged, id. at 128. 

In the absence of any record of the prospective juror’s race, petitioner cannot

establish even the first step of the Batson analysis, a prima facie case that the prosecutor

exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race (or gender) "by showing that the

totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose." Batson,

476 U.S. at 93-94. Petitioner’s second (Batson) claim is without merit.

Both of petitioner’s claims having been rejected, the petition for a writ of habeas

corpus is DENIED. The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\BLAKE122.RUL

Case 4:07-cv-01122-PJH Document 12 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 2