Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 06- 31054 Su m m ar y Cal endar

CH ARLES CARLTO N W ALL Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant

v. BURL CAI N, W ARDEN, L OUI S IANA S TA TE P ENI TE NTIARY R espon den t
- A pp el l ee
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 03- C V

- 1641

B ef ore W IE N E R , ST E W A R T , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * W e w i t h draw ou r pri or u n pu bl i shed opi n i on , 200 8 W L 506 862 2 ( 5th C i r. D e c . 1 , 2 00 8) (pe rc ur i am ) , a nd i s s ue t he f o l l o w i ng s ubs t i t ut e o pi ni o n. I n O c t obe r1997, C harl es C ar l t on W al l , L oui si ana pri so ner# 240914, w as co n v icte db yj u ryv e rd ict o f se co n d -d e g re e m u r d e ra n dse n te n ce dto life i m pr i s o nm e n t
. W e g r ant e d W allac e r t i f i c at e o f a ppe al ab i l i t y t o a ppe alt he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t d e n y in gh is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 a p p lic a tio n o n h is cla im of raci aldi scr i m i n a tion a gainstA f ri can - A m eri can s i n t h e process f or s el ect i on United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 12, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 06- 31054

2 o f T a n g ip a h o aP a r is h g r a n dju r yfo r e p e r s o n s a t t h e tim e o f h is in d ic tm e n t. W a ll assert s th at he ha s stand i n g t o rais e eq u alp rot ect i on a n d d u e process chal l en ges t o t h e g r a n dj u r yf

o r e p e r s o n s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s a n d t h a th e h a s ma d e ap r i ma faci e show i n g of raci al di scr i m i n ati on i n t h at proc ess. Th e R espon den tcoun t ers t hatw e m ay n otrevi e w t he m e r i t s o f W all ’ s c l ai m b e c aus e t he do c um e nt s he
su b m i t t ed to sup port i tw ere not au t h en t i cat ed p u rsuan tt o t h e F ederalR u l es o f E v id e n c e a n dw e r e th e r e fo r e in a d m is s ib l e . W e r e v ie w th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s f i ndi n gs of fac tf

o rc l e are r r o ra nd it s c o nc l us i o ns o f l aw de no vo , a pplyi ng t he
sa m e sta n d a rdof rev i ew to t h e sta te cou rt’ s d ecis io n a s t h e d i stri ct cou rt. Mart i n ez v. Joh n son , 2 5 5 F .3d 2 2 9 , 2 3 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e co r r e c tlys ta te dth a t, in o r d e rto o b ta in re lie f o n h is di s c r i m i nat i o n c l ai m , W allw as “r e qu i r e d t o pr o vedi s c r i m i nat i o n und e rt he stan d a rd s set ou t i n t h e S u p rem e C ou rt’ s ca ses . ” R i d eau v. W h i t ley , 237 F. 3d 4 7 2 , 48 4 -85 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 0 ). A ft er im p l i ci tly h oldin g th a t W a l lh a ds tan d i n g to rai se th i s di scr i m i n ati o n cl ai m , t h e m agis t rat e j u dg e f ou n d that W al lha d n ot suff ered an “i nj u ry i n fact” un der Campb e l lv . Lo ui s i ana , 523 U
. S. 392, 397- 98 ( 199 8) , an d h adfai l ed to st ate a c on st i t u t i on alv iola ti on , cit i n g t o G ui l lor y v . Ca in , 3 03 F. 3d6 47, 6 53 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 2)

. I n r e ac hi ng t hi s c o nc l us i o n, t he
m agis t rat e j u dg e n ot ed th at W al lha d su bm i t t ed va ri ou s docum en t s i n sup port
o f hi s c l ai m a nd thatW all ’ s d o c um e nt at i o n was no tc e r t i f i e d o rv e r i f

i e d i n a ny
w ay . Af t e ra s s um i ng t hatW all ’ s do c um e nt s w e r e a ut he nt i cand adm i s s ibl e , t he
m agi s t r at e j udg e f

o und t hat t he s t at i s t i c s w e r e i nc o m pl e t e be c aus e t he r e l e va nt docu m en t s fai l ed to i n di cat e t h e race or gend er of t h e l i st ed gran d j u ry f ore p e rsons. Th e di st ri ctcourtden i ed § 225 4 rel i ef on W al l ’ s di scr i m i n ati on c l ai m b e c aus e , a s de t e r m i ne d b y t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e , “W allha d m ad e no s ho w i ng o f

i nt e nt i o nalra c e orge nde rdi s c r i m i nat i o n i n t he s e l e c t i o n o f hi s g r and j u ry f oreperson u n der G u i l lory .” I n Ca mp b ell , t h e Su prem e C ou rt concl u ded t h at “ C am pb el l , l i ke an y ot h er
w h i te d efen d a n t, h a s stan d i n g to ra i se a n eq u a lpr otection c h a llen ge toN o. 06- 31054

3 di s c r i m i nat i o n a ga i ns tb l ac k pe r s o ns i n t he s e l e c t i o n o f hi s g r andj ur y. ” 5 23 U
. S. at 400. I n so h ol di n g, t h e C ou rtf ou n d that a llth ree prec on di t i on s had been
sa ti sfi ed , in cl u d i n g th a t “th e d efen d a n t su ff ere dan ‘i nj u ryi n fa ct. ’” I d. at397- 98. Th e C ou rtnoted t h at “ [r] egard l ess of hi s or h e r ski n col or, t h e accused
s u ffe r s as ig n ific a n t inju r yinfa c t w h e n th e co m p o s itio n o f th e g r a n dju r yis tain tedb y ra ci a ldiscrim i n a ti on . ” I d. at 398
. B ecau se W al lha d st an di n g t o rai se h i s di scr i m i n ati on cl ai m , he m ett h e “i nj u ry i n fact” r e qu i rem en tun der Ca mp b ell

. I n G u i l lory , t he St at e a do pt e d ast rat egyo f ( 1) c o nc e di ng t hatt he petit i on er had est abli sheda pri m a faci e case an d ( 2) bear in gt h e bu rden of
r e but t i ng t hatpr i m a fac i e ca s e . 30 3 F. 3dat649
. The r e l e va nti s s ue i n G u i l lory
w as thu s w h et h er the S t ate h adm etit s burd en of rebutt i n g t h e presum pti on of di s c r i m i nat i o n b y s ho w i ng t hatobj e c t ive , ra c e - ne ut r alcr i t e r i a w e r e use d i n t he
s e le c tio n p r o c e s s . I

d. a t 6 5 0
. In th e in s ta n t ca s e , W a ll’ s c la im w a s p r e s u m a b ly de ni e d b e c aus e t he m agi s t r at e j udg e a nd the di s t r i c t c o ur tde t e r m i ne d thathe h a dfa il e dt o e s t a b li s h ap r im afa c ie c a s e o f d is c r im in a t io n . T h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
a n d t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e ’ s r e l i anc e o n G u i l lory fo rth e p r o p o s itio n th a t W a ll
m ad e no s ho w i ng o f

i nt e nt i o naldi s c r i m i nat i o n was m i s pl ac e d; s uc h as ho w i ng is n o t r e q u ir e d t o e s ta b lis h ap r im afa c ie ca s e . SeeR o sev. Mitch ell , 4 43 U
. S. 5 4 5 , 5 6 5 (19 7 9 ) (li stin gth e th re e ele m e n ts o f a p rim afac ie ca se ). T h e m agis t rat e j u dg e consi dered on l y th e firs tl i stof gran d j u ry f o r e pe r s o ns a nd s e e m i ngly r ej e c t e d the s e c o nd l i s tof gr andj ur y f

o r e pe r s o ns due t o t h e l ack of

an y i n di cat i on as to the source of i t s i n f orm ati on , d espi t e the stat ed
assum pti on of t h e au t h en t i cit y an d ad m i ssibi l i t y of W al l ’ s docum en t s. Th e race a n dg e n d e rin fo r m a tio n fo rth e lis te dg r a n dju r yfo r e p e r s o n s w a s in c lu d e do n ly i n t h e sec on d l i st
. E xam i n ati on of W al l ’ s docum en t s i n di cat es t h at nei t h er li st
s p e c ifie s th e s o u r c e o f th e in c lu d e din fo r m a t io n . D u e to th e in c o n s is te n c ie s in t h e m agi s t r at e j udg e ’ s fac t ualf i ndi ngs , w hi c h wer e r e l i e d up o n b y t he di s t r i ct
c o ur t , ourre vi e w l e av e s us “ w i t h t he def i ni t e and f

i r m co nvic t i o n t hata m i s t ak eN o. 06- 31054

4 h a s be en com m i tted.” F air m an v. A n d ers on , 188 F. 3d 635, 640 ( 5t h C i r . 1999) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n dcita tion om itted ). Bas e d upo n t he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s j udgm en tde nyi ng W all ’ s § 22 54 a ppli c at i o n a s t o hi s c l ai m o f r ac i aldi s c r i m i nat i o n i n t he g r and ju r yfo r e p e r s o n s e le c tio n p r o c e s s in T a n g ip a h o aP a r is h is VA C A T E D , a n dth is
ca se is R E M A N D E D to t h e d i stri ct cou rt for furth er pro cee d i n gs con sist en t w i th t h i s opi n i on . W e express no vi ew s as t o t h e adm i ssibi l i t y or probative value of W all ’ s docum en t s, w h et h er W al lha s es t abli shed a pri m a faci e case re ga r ding the i n st an tcl ai m , or t h e ul t i m ate outc om e of t h e proceedi n gs.