Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set fo rth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. Batson v. Ken tu cky , 4 7 6U .S

. 7 9( 1 9 8 6). 1 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10057 Su m m ar y Cal endar

C E C IL K E IT H H AY E S , P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. RI CK T HALER, DI RECT OR, T EXAS DEP ART M ENT OF CRI M I NAL J U S T IC E , C O R R E C T IO N A L IN S T IT U T IO N S D IV IS IO N , R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 05- C V

- 01974

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg e: * In t h i s hab eas case, C eci lK ei t h H ayes ( “ H ayes”) ch al l en ges h i s s t ate- court
c o nvi c t i o n f

o l l o w i ng a j ur y t r i alb e f o r e a j ur y s e l e c t e d i n a pr o c e s s he c o nt e nds
w as t ai nt ed by B ats on vi ol ati on s. Th e di st ri ctcourtgra n te d a C ert i f i cat e of 1 Appe al ab i l i t y ( CO A) o n t hi s q ue s t i o n wi t h r e s pe c tt o t he pr o s e c ut i o n’ s s t r i ki ng United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 19, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

Anti -T erro ri sm a n d E ff ective De athP en altyAct§ 1 0 4 , 2 8U .S .C

. §2 2 5 4(2 0 0 6). 2 2 of Ju ror # 1 5 , C yn th i a R i ch a rd

. W e g ra n ted a C O Aon t h e sam e q u estion as to Jur o r# 16 , Li nda J ac ks o n. Our r e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o t he se qu es t i o ns und e rt he
a p p l i ca b l e A E D P A de feren ti a lrev i ew stan d a rd s. F or th e rea son s set f orth 2 bel ow , w e R E V E R S E an d R E M A N D w i t h i n st ructi on s.

I

. F AC T UAL A ND P RO CE DUR AL B AC KGR OUND I n 2 00 2, H ay e s w as t ri ed i n a D al l as Count y s t at e di s t r i c tc o ur to n t he cha rge of agg ravated robbery. D u ri n g t h e j u ry sel ect i on process, H ayes obj ect ed to th e p r o s e c u tio n ’ s u s e o f e ig h t o f its e l e v e n p e r e m p to r ys tr ik e s to re m o v e a ll
e lig ib le A fr ic a n -A m e r ic a n v e n ir e m e m b e r s fr o m th e p a n e l th a t w a s u ltim a te ly
se at ed. Fol l ow i ng a B ats on hea ri n g, t h e t ri al court j u dg e sust ai n ed the B ats on c hal l e nge r e ga r di ng t he s t r i ki ng o f one pot e nt i alj ur o r , J ur o r# 6, G e r t r ude H a s h a w a y , b u t o v e r r u le d it a s to th e re m a in in gju r o r s , in c lu d in gth e tw o in q u e s tio n h e r e , R ic h a r d a n d J a c k s o n . W i t h r e s pe c tt o H as haway, t h e p r o s e c u t o rc o n t e n d e dt hats he w as s l e e pi ng dur i ng vo i rdi r e a nd was “ gr and m o t he r l y and c ar e l e s s i n he ra ppe ar anc e . ” The t r i alc our tc onc l uded t hats he w as not sl ee pi ng and t hat be i ng “ gr andm ot her l y” and c ar e l e s s i n o ne ’ s a ppe ar anc e w as no ta “ pr o pe rr e as o n” f o ra pe r e m pt ory st r i ke. She w as t hen r ei nst at ed t o t he j ury. W i t h res pect t o R i cha rd, t h e prosecuti on cl ai m ed t h at s h e w as st ruck for f i ve di f fe r e ntr e as o ns : ( 1) s he w as “ ho s t i l e ” ; ( 2) s he fai l e d t o r e s po nd t o t he j u dg e’ s questi on s; ( 3) she h ad a “bad j u ror rat i n g ”; ( 4) she w as em pl oyed as a t eac her ; and ( 5) she se l ec t ed “ r ehabi l i t at i on” as an i m por t ant goal of t he c r i m i nal j u st i ce s yst em . D u ri n g t h e B ats on heari ng, t he t r i alj udg e di s m i s s e d t he
as se r t i on t hat R i c hard w as non- r es ponsive and f oc use d on t he “ hos t i l i t y” pr ong. T h e t ri alj u dg e con cl u ded tha t , w h i l e he n ot i ced no su ch h ost i l i t y, hosti l i t y i s a l e gi t i m at e r e as o n f

o rs t r i ki ng a j ur o r . N o t ab l y, t he pr o s e c ut i o n di d no ts t r i ke Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

3 tw o p eo p l e w h o w ere w h i te teac h ers an d serv ed as jur ors n or d i d i t st ri k e a w h i te j u ror w h o al so had a “b ad j u ror rat i n g”; add i t i on al l y, R i cha rd act u al l y di d n ot
me n t i o n r e h a b i l i t a t i o n a s a g o a lo f t h e c r i mi n a lj u s t i c e s y s t e m. W i t h res pect t o Jackson , t h e prosecuti on cl ai m ed that she w as st ruck for t h r e e r e a s o n s : ( 1 ) s h e h a d a c o u s i n w i t h a p e n d i n g c r i mi n a lc a s e i n t h e s a me coun t y; ( 2) she al l eged l y gav e conf l i ct i n g an sw ers abou tw h et h er s h e w ou l d n eed t o s ee t he gun t hat w as use d i n t he rob ber y; an d ( 3) s he c hos e r ehabi l i t at i on as a goal of

t h e cr i m i n alj u st i ce syst em . In response, t h e defen se noted t h at ot h er i n di vi du al s w ere s el ect ed f or the j u ry w h o al so had rel ati ves w i t h cr i m i n alcases and w ho c ho s e r e hab i l i t at i o n a s a g o alo f t he c r i m i nalj us t i c e s ys t em . The de fe ns e al s o po i nt e d o ut t hat Ja c ks o n’ s s e e m i ng “ c o nf l i c t i ng ans w e r s ” a bo utt he gun a c t ual l y r e f

l e c t e d c o nf

us i o n a bo utt he o r i gi nalq ue s t i o n; o nc e c l ar i f i e d, s he i ndi c at e d s he di d no tne e d t o s e e t he g un. Fol l o w i ng hi s c o nvi c t i o n, H ay e s ap pe al e d t he de ni al o f hi s o bj e c t i o ns t o t he st at e’ s i nt er m edi at e c our tof ap p ea l s, as w el las t he Texas C our tof C r i m i nal A p p e a ls

. B o th a ffir m e d

. Hay es v. S ta te , N o. 11- 02- 00348- C R , 2003 W L 220 6 4 066 (T e x . A p p . – E a s tla n d S e p t. 4 , 2 0 0 3 ) (u n p u b lis h e d ), aff’d , N o. PD

- 16556- 03 ( Tex. C ri m . A pp. M ar c h 3, 2004) ( unp ubl i she d)

. Th e r ec or d doe s not i ndi c at e t hat a p e tit io n fo rw r it o f c e r tio r a r i w a s file d in th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t. H aving thu s exha u st ed h i s s t ate c ou rt a p p e al s, H ayes soug h ta w ri tof habeas c or pus f

r om th e U ni t ed St at es D i st r i c tC our t
. The m agi st r at e j udge cond u ct ed t w o h eari n gs an d f i rst recom m en ded den i al of h abea s rel i e f befor e sub sequ en t l y recom m en di n g gran t i n g h abea s r el i ef w i t h respect t o t h e st ri ke of R i cha rd. A fter hea ri n g oralargu m en t , t h e di st ri ctj u dg e concl u ded t h at r el i ef shou l d not be gran t ed and den i ed H ayes’ s peti t i on . B ot h j u d g e s e x p ressed concern ab ou tt h e factt h at 100% of t h e A f ri can - A m eri can ven i re m em bers w ere st r uck byt he St at e a nd opi ned t hat t hi s w as a di f f i c ul tc as e. Thi s appeal f o l l o w e d. Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

4 I I

. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW O u r s t an da rd of revi ew i n an A E D P A case i s w el l

- est abli shed : deference
m us tb e g i ve n t o fac t ualf i ndi ngs o f

t he s t at e c o ur ti n t he a bs e nc e o f c l e ara nd convinci n g evi den ce to the con t rary. 28 U

. S

. C

. § 22 54(e) ( 1)

. B ecau se t h e B ats on cl a i m s w er e a dj udi c at ed i n st at e c our t , t he di st r i c tc our t , as w el las ourcou rt,
m u stdefer to the stat e cou rt ’ s resol u t i on un l ess i t s det erm i n ati on w as “ contrary t o” oran “ unreas onabl e a ppl i c at i on o f ” c l ear l y est abl i she d fede r all aw as d eterm i n ed by the U n i ted S tates S u p rem e C ou rt. § 22 5 4 (d); s e e als o Hi l lv. Joh n son , 21 0 F

. 3 d 48 1 , 48 5 ( 5 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). As tate cou rt d ecisi on i s con trary to
c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d f

e de r all aw i f

i t“ ap pl i e s a rul e t hatco nt r ad i c t s t he g o ve r ni ng l a w set f

orth i n [ S u p rem e C ou rt] cas es,” Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 529 U

. S

. 3 6 2, 405 (2 0 0 0 ), o r “ i f

t h e s ta te co u r t c o n fr o n ts a s e t o f fa c ts th a t a r e m a te r ia lly i n dist in g u i sha bl e f

rom a deci si on of

[ t h e Su prem e C ou rt ] an d n evert h el ess a r r iv e s at a resu l t dif feren t f rom [ th e C ou rt’ s] p rece d en t. ” Id

. at 406. A state
c our tdec i si on i nvol ves a n un r e a s o na b l e a p p l i c a t i o n of c l ear l y e st abl i she d fede r al la w if th e s ta te co u r t “ c o r r e c tly id e n tifie s t h e g o v e r n in gle g a l r u le b u t a p p lie s it
u n rea son a b l y to the fa cts of a pa rti cu l a r p ri son er’ s ca se . . . . ” I d. at 40 7- 08
. The S u prem e C ou rtha s art i cul ated t h e governing st an da rds f or evaluati n g w h et h er p ere m p t or y s t r i kes w er e r ac e- bas ed i n se ver alc as es , i ncl udi ng B ats on a nd Mi l l er- E lv. D ret ke (Mil ler- E l II ) , 5 4 5 U

. S

. 2 3 1 ( 2 0 0 5 )

. T h e mo s tr e c e n tS u p r e me C ou rtpronou n cem en ton thi s s u bj ectw as Snyd e rv . Lo ui s i ana , 128 S. C t
. 1203 (2 0 0 8 ). W h i l e A E D P Arevi ew i s hi gh l y d e fer e n t i al , w e note t h at i ti s not perf u n ct ory. T h e S u p re m e C ou rtha s s t ress ed that “ [ e] ven i n t h e contextof fede r alh abeas , defer enc e do es noti m pl y abandonm entorabdi c at i on o f j udi c i al
rev i ew . D eferen ce d oe s n ot by de fi n i ti on pr eclu d e reli ef. ” Miller -E l v. Co ck re ll (Miller -E l I

), 5 3 7 U .S

. 3 2 2 , 3 4 0 (2 0 0 3 ); s e e als o Pane t t iv . Q uar t e r m an , 5 51 U

. S. 930, 953 ( 2007) (A E D PA doe s not “ pro hi bi t a fede r al c our t f r om f i ndi ng an Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

5 ap pl i c at i o n o f

a pr i nc i pl e unr e as o nab l e w he n i ti nvo l ve s a s e to f fac t s di f

fe r e nt f rom t h ose of

the case i n w h i ch a p ri n ci pl e i s ann ou n ced. Th e st atute r ecognizes , to th e c o n tr a r y , t h a t e v e n a g e n e r a l s ta n d a r d m a y b e a p p lie d in a n u n r e a s o n a b le
m a n n e r .”) (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d cit a tio n o m itt e d ); T aylor , 529 U

. S. at 3 7 7 (A E D P A“directs f ed era lcou rts to atten d to ev ery s tate-cou rt jud gm en t w i th
u tm o st ca re, bu ti tdoes not r equ i re t h em t o defer t o t h e opi n i on of every re a so n a b le s ta te -co u rt ju d g e on th e co n te n t of fe d e ra l l a w .”)

. M in d fu l o f th e se p re ce d e n ts, ou r c o u rt a d d re ss e d th e a p p li ca tion of B ats on i n a § 2 25 4 pr o c e e di ng i n R e e dv . Q u a r te r m a n , 555 F

. 3d 364 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) and Hay ne s v. Q u art erm an , 561 F

. 3d 535 ( 5th C i r. 200 9)

. Th ese c ases f u rt h er i n f orm our an al ysi s. I I I

. D I S CUS S I ON A

. Stan d ard s f

or a B ats on I

n qu i ry The EqualPr o t e c t i o n Cl aus e f o r bi ds a pr o s e c ut o rf r o m c hal l e ngi ng p o te n tia l ju r o r s s o le ly o n a c c o u n t o f th e irra c e . B ats on , 476 U

. S. at89. B ats on outl i n ed a three- st e p p r o c e s s f or eval u ati n g cl ai m s t h at a prosec u t or used perem ptory c h al l en ges i n a m an n er t h at vi ol ated t h e E qu alP rot ect i on C l au se: ( 1) a de fendant m ustm ake a pri m a fac i e s how i ng t hat t he pr os ec ut orhas exerci sed h i s perem ptory c h al l en ges on the ba sis o f r a ce; ( 2) t h e bu rden t h en shi f t s t o t h e prosecutort o art i cul ate a race- n eu t ralreason f or s t ri king the j u ror i n ques t i on; and ( 3) t he t r i al c our t m ust det er m i ne w het hert he def endant has
c a r r ie d h is b u r d e n o f p r o v in gp u r p o s e fu l d is c r im in a tio n . S nyd er, 128 S. C t
. at 1 2 0 7
.T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t e x p la in e d th e th ir d s te p in th e fo llo w in gm a n n e r : S t ep three of

t h e B ats on i nqui ry i nvo l ve s a n e va l uat i o n o f t he prosecutor ’ s c redi bi l i t y, an d the best evid e n ce of di scr i m i n ator y i nt e nto f

t e n wi l lb e t he de m e ano ro f t he a t t o r ne y w ho e xe r c i s e s t he cha l l en ge. In ad di t i on , race- n eu t ralreasons f or perem ptory cha l l en ges of

t en i n vok e a j u ror’ s dem ean o r ( e. g. , nervou sness, Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

6 i n att en t i on ) , m ak i ng t he t r i alcourt ’ s f i rst

- h an d observati on s of even greateri m portance. I d. a t 1 2 0 8 (i n tern a l q u ota ti on m a rk s a n d ci tati on s om i tted). T h e u ltim a te
c o n c lu s io n o f d is c r im in a to r y in te n t is a fa c tu a l fin d in g . L ad dv. Co ck re ll , 311 F

. 3d 349 , 356 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)

. “ [ T ] h e cr i t i calq u e stion i n deter m i n i n g w h et h er a pr i s o ne rha s pr o ve d p ur po s e f uldi s c r i m i nat i o n a ts t e p t hr e e i s t he p e r s u a s iv e n e s s o f th e p r o s e c u to r ’ s ju s tific a tio n fo rh i s p e r e m p to r y s tr ik e . A t t h is stag e, i m p l a u sibl e or fan tastic j u sti fi ca ti on s m a y (an d pr ob a b l y w i l l) be f ou n d to b e p retex ts f

or p u rp ose ful discri m i n a ti on . ” Miller -E l I, 537 U

. S. at 338- 39 ( i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks and c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)

. “ [ T] he ul t i m at e i nqui r y f o rt he j udg e i s no tw he t he rc o uns e l ’ s reaso n i s s us pe c t , o rw e ak , o ri r r at i o nal , b ut
w h e th e r c o u n s e l is te llin g th e tr u th in h is o rh e ra s s e r tio n th a t t h e ch a lle n g e is
n ot rac e-ba sed

. ” Un ited S ta tes v . B en tley -S m ith , 2 F

. 3d 136 8, 137 5 ( 5th C i r. 199 3)

. Th e “ deci si on s o f th is co u rtha ve m ad e i tpl ai n t h at t h e process of
c h o o s i n g a j u r y m a y b e i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e ‘ i n t u i t i v e a s s u m p t i o n s ’o f t he
a ttorn ey s. ” I

d. at 137 4. “ W e ha ve r e cognized t h at t h ese det erm i n ati on s of
c r e d i b i l i t y an d d e me a n o rl i e p e c u l i a r l y wi t h i n a t r i a lj u d g e ’ s p r o v i n c e , a n d we h a ve stated tha t i n th e ab sen ce of ex cep ti on a l ci rcu m stan ces, w e w ou l d de fer t o [t h e tri a lcou rt]

. ” S nyd er , 1 28 S. Ct

. a t1 208 (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd
c i t at i ons om i t t ed)

. W hen r evi ew i ng a B ats on r ul i ng, b e c aus e “ al lo f t he
c ir c u m s ta n c e s t h a t b e a ru p o n th e is s u e o f r a c ia l a n im o s ity m u s t b e co n s u lte d ,” t hi s c our tm ay c ons i dert he strike o f one j uro rf orany r el evanc e i tm i ght have
r e g a r d in gth e s tr ik e o f a n o th e rju r o r . I d. O u r rev i ew i s f

u rth er infor m ed by va ri ou s p ost- B ats on Su prem e C ou rt de c i s i o ns . I n Mil ler- E l II, a T exas defenda n tsough tfederal ha beas corpu s r el i ef
o n t he g r o und t hat the t r i alc o ur ts ho ul d ha ve s us t ai ne d hi s o bj e c t i o n t o t he pro se c ut or ’ s di sc r i m i nat or y use of per em pt or y st r i kes agai nstA f r i c an- A m er i c an j ur o r s . 5 45 U

. S. a t2 36

- 37
. The S u prem e Cour tc o nduc t e d “ s i de

- by

- s i de Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

7 com p a ri son s of som e b l a ck ve n i re p a n eli sts w h o w ere stru ck an d w h i te p a n eli sts
a l l ow ed to serv e.” I

d. at 241
. T h e C ou rtnoted t h at “ [ i ] f a prosecutor ’ s prof

fered
r eas on f orst r i ki ng a bl ac k panel i stappl i es j ustas w el lt o a n ot her w i se - si m i l ar no nbl ac k who i s pe r m i t t e d t o s e r ve , t hati s e vi de nc e t e ndi ng t o pr o ve pur po s e f ul d i scrim i n a ti on to be con sider ed at B ats on ’ s th i r d s te p .” I d. Th e Mil ler- E l II
m aj or i t y r ej ec t ed t he di ss ent ’ s as se r t i on t hat “ ‘ si m i l ar l y s i t uat ed’doe s notm ean
m at c hi ng any one of

seve r alreas ons t he pr os ec ut i on gav e f ors t r i ki ng a po t ent i al j uro r - i tm eans m at c hi ng a llof th em . ” I d. a t2 47 n. 6. The m aj o r i t y s t at e d: N o n e o f o u rca s e s a n n o u n c e s [ s i c ] a ru le th a t n o co m p a r is o n is p r o b a tiv e u n l e s s t h e s itu a tio n o f th e in d iv id u a ls co m p a r e d is id e n tic a l in a ll re s p e c ts , a n d th e r e is n o re a s o n to a c c e p t o n e . . . . A per s e r ul e t hat a de fendant c annot w i n a B ats on cl ai m u n l ess t h ere is a n exact l y i den t i calw h i t e j u ror w ou l d l eave B ats on i n operab l e; potenti alj u rors are not produ ct s of a setof cooki e cutt ers. I d. Th e Courtt hen c ons i der ed t w o s pec i f i c A f r i c an- A m er i c an j uro r s w ho had b e e n s tr u c k b yth e p r o s e c u tio n : B illy J e a n F ie ld s a n d J o e W a r r e n . I d. at242- 52. The pr o s e c ut o r ’ s pr o f fe r e d r e as o n f

o rst r i ki ng Fi e l ds w as t hathe ha d c o nc e r ns
w i th F i elds’ s statem en ts i n d i ca ti n g th a t he cou l d n ot i m p ose the de a th pe n a l ty b e c a u s e th e d e fe n d a n t c o u ld p o s s i b l y b e re h a b ilita te d

. I d. at243. Af

t ert hat st r i ke w as chal l enged by defens e co unsel , the pr os ec ut oradded t hat F i el ds w as
s tr u c k b e c a u s e h is b r o th e rh a d a p r io rco n v ic tio n . I d. at 246
. T h e C ou rtnoted t h at t h e prosecutorm i scharacter ize d F ield s’s sta te m e n ts a n d th a t th e p rosecutor accepted several n on - A f ri can - A m eri can ven i re m em bers w h o expressed
r es er vat i ons abo ut i m pos i ng t he dea t h penal t y o n a per so n w h o c oul d be
r e h a b ilita te d

. I

d. at 244

- 45. T h e C ou rt di scr edi t ed t h e prosecutor ’ s s econd ary ba s i s f o rt he s t r i ke be c aus e i t“ r e e k[ e d] o f a f t e r t ho ugh t , ” a s Fi e l ds s t at e d t hathe
w a s n o tc lo s e to h is b r o t h e r , a n d th e p r o s e c u t o rd id n o ta s k w h e t h e r h is b r o t h e r ’s
c r im in a l h is to r y w o u ld in flu e n c e h im if h e w e r e to s e r v e a s a ju r o r . I d. at246. Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

T ex a s h a s au niqu e proc edureallo wi n gatto rn ey s to“vie w th e arr ay” a n d th enr equ es t 3 that th e venire b e “shuffle d.” En acte d ata time when que stion s could b e raised as toth e ran domness of th e venire pane l’s assembly , its continu ed u se h as b eenqu estion ed in light of Batsonan d mo de rnsele ctio np ro ce sse s. SeeMich a elGall a gh er , Abolish ing t he Texas Jur

y Sh uff le , 35S T . MARY ’ S L. J. 3 03 ( 20 04 ) ; Elaine Carlson , B atson, J.E.B. , and Beyon d: T

he Paradoxical Questfor Reasoned Pere mptor y Str ikes in th e J

ury Selec tio n Pro cess , 46BA Y L OR L. R EV . 9 4 7 , 9 8 1 -8 2 ( 1 9 9 4). Th e r e i s n o i n dic ati o n th at s u c h a s huf f l e p l aye d a p artinthis case. 8 T h e pr o s e c ut o ri n Mil ler- E l II pr o vi de d t hr e e r e as o ns f o r s t r i ki ng Joe W a rren : (1) W a rren p rov i d ed i n con sist en t resp on ses an d i m p l i ed tha t t h e d ea th pen al t y m ay be a m ore l en i en tpu n i shm en tt h an i m pri sonm en tf or l i fe; (2 ) W a rr e n w a s s tru ck w h e n th e S ta te still h a d te n p e re m p to ry ch a ll e n g e s le ft
an d could af

f ord t o be m ore l i berali n str i king potenti alj u rors ; an d ( 3) W arren h ad a b rot h er- i n - l aw w h o ha d been convi ct ed of a cr i m e i n vol vi n g f

ood st am ps. I d. at 248

- 52. Th e C ou rt n ot ed that t h ree un st ruck ven i re m em bers expressed sim il a r o p in ion s r e g a rd in gth e d e a th p e n a ltyb e in gm o re l e n ie n t th a n li fe i m pri sonm en tan d that one of t h ose un struck m em bers w as accept ed befor e W ar r e n w as s t r uc k, t he r e by o bv i at i ng t he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s s e c o nd p r o f fe r e d r e as o n. I d. a t2 4 8 -4 9
. A s fo rth e th ir d ju s t if ic a t io n , t h e C o u r th e ld th a tth e p r o s e c u t o r ’s fai l ur e t o a s k a ny que s t i o ns ab outW ar r e n’ s b r o t he r - i n- l aw unde r m i ne d t he
v a lid ity o f th a t r e a s o n . I d. at 2 5 0 n .8. T h e C ou rtf u rt h er noted t h at ot h er
u n s tr u c k p a n e l m e m b e r s a ls o h a d re la tiv e s w h o h a d cr im in a l h is to r ie s . I d. In l i ghto f t h ese c om pa ri sons, t h e C ou rtf ou n d the prosecutor ’ s r ace- n eu t ralr e as o ns t o b e i m pl au sibl e, t h ereby sup porti n g t h e defen da n t ’ s B ats on ch a lle n g e . I d. at 247, 251- 52. H ow eve r , t he C our t ’ s ul t i m at e c onc l usi on t hat a B ats on vi ol ati on had o c c ur r e d was a l s o s upp o r t e d b y t he C o ur t ’ s de t e r m i nat i o ns t hat( 1) t he pr o s e c ut o re nga ge d i n p u r p o s e f uldi s c r i m i nat i o n b y s huf f l i ng t he j ur y pa ne l a nd 3 pos i ng c ont r as t i ng ques t i ons t o t he j uro r s r egar di ng m i ni m um s ent enc es and ( 2) Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

No evidence wa s presented in Haye s’s case that the now-no torio us S parling Manual 4 continu ed tobeinuse at the time of his 200 2 trial , by which time a new District Attorneywas inp laceinDall a s C ounty
. See Fields v. Thaler , 588 F.3d 27 0, 281 (5th Cir. 2 009) (noting with regard to anoth er trialin20 02 that “long aft er the t r ial s of Mill er-elan d R eed in 198 6 and 198 3, r espective ly

. . . . Th ere is no evidence that the now infamo us S parling Manual , outlining the reaso nin g for excludin g minoritie s from j ur y service, was still in use byDall as C ounty prosecutors wh en [defen dant’s] ca se was tried.”) 9 t h e D al l as C ou n t y D i st ri ctA t t orney’ s of f i ce m an u al ad vocati n g t h e excl u si on of

4
m i no r i t i e s f

r o m j ury servi c e ha d b e e n m ad e a va i l ab l e t o a tl e as to ne o f t he p r o s e c u to r s in M ille r -E l’ s tr ia l. I d. at253- 66. I n S nyd er , a Loui si ana def endant ar gued o n appealt hat t he t r i alj udge erred i n rej ect i n g h i s obj ect i o n to the prosecutor’ s di scr i m i n ator y u se of per em pt or y s t r i kes agai nstA f r i c an- A m er i c an j uro r s. 128 S. C t
. a t1207. A l t h ou gh t h e defen da n t ’ s B ats on c l ai m c e n t ered on tw o A f ri can - A m eri can ven i re
m e m be r s , t he Supr e m e C ou rt uph e l d t he c l ai m a s t o o ne , J e f f r e y Bro o ks , a nd t he r e f o r e f o und i tunne c e s s ar y t o c o ns i de rt he c l ai m a s t o t he o t he rAf r i c anA m e r ic a n p a n e lis t. I d. at 1 20 8. The pr o s e c ut o ri n S nyd er pr o vi de d t w o r e as o ns f o rst r i ki ng Bro o ks : ( 1) he l o o ke d ve r y ne r vo us t hr o ugh o utt he que s t i o ni ng; a nd ( 2) he w as a s t ude ntt e ac he rw ho e xp r e s s e d c o nc e r n a bo utm i s s i ng c l as s a nd t he pr o s e cut o rw as w o r r i e d t hatBr o o ks m i ghtv o t e f o rt he de fe nda nt ’ s g ui l to n a le s s e rv e r d ic t in o r d e rto a v o id a p e n a lty p h a s e . I d. The Cour tno t e d t hat , a l t ho ugh de fe r e nc e i s due t o a t r i alj udg e ’ s f i ndi ng
r e g a r d in ga p a n e li s t ’s d e m e a n o r , th e tr ia l ju d g e d id n o t m a k e a n y e x p lic it determ i n ati on a s t o B rooks’ s dem ean or and si m pl y overrul ed the B ats on o b je c tio n w ith o u t e x p la n a tio n . I d. at 120 9 . I t t h e ref ore hel d that “ w e cann ot pr e s um e t hat t he t r i al j udg e c r e di t e d t he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s a s s e r t i o n t hatM r . Br o o ks
w a s n erv ou s. ” I

d. Th e C ou rthel d that t h e prosecutor ’ s s econd prof fered reason f ors t r i ki ng B r oo ks w as i m pl ausib l e bec ause ( 1) B r oo ks w as one of m or e t han f i f t y ve ni r e m e m be r s ( m any o f w ho m w e r e ac c e pt e d as j ur o r s b y t he pr o s e c ut i o n)
w h o expressed concern that j u ry ser vi ce c ou l d i n t erfe re w i t h t h ei r ot h er Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

10 o bl i ga t i o ns , ( 2) t he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s o ut l i ne d s c e nar i o w as hi ghl y s pe c ul at i ve , a nd ( 3) B r o o k s ’ s c o n c e r n r e g a r d i n gh i s t e a c h i n gr e q u i r e m e n t s wa s r e s o l v e d b y t he tr ia l ju d g e d u r i n gv o ird ir e . I d. a t1 20 9- 12
. The Cour the l d t hat“ [ t ] he pro se c ut i on’ s pro f

ferof t hi s pre t ext ualex pl anat i on nat ural l y gives r i se t o a n i n fe r e n c e o f d i scrim i n a tory i n ten t. ” I d. a t1 21 2. The Cour the l d t hatt he pr o s e c ut i o n woul d o nl y be ab l e t o s al va ge t he s t r i ke ag ai ns t Bro o ks bys ho w i ng t hatt he pr e t e xt ualfac t o rw as no tde t e r m i nat i ve , b utt hat , i n l i ghto f t he
c i r c um s t anc e s a ti s s ue i n t hatc as e , “ t he r e c o r d d o e s no ts ho w t hatt he p r o s e c u t i o n w o u ld h a v e p r e e m p tiv e ly ch a lle n g e d M r . B r o o k s b a s e d o n h is
n erv ou sn ess a l on e.” I d. A ccor di n gl y, t h e S nyd erC o u r tu p h e ld th e d e fe n d a n t ’s B ats on ch a lle n g e a n d v a c a te d th e L o u is ia n a S u p r e m e C o u r t’s ju d g m e n t. I d. I n R eed , w e recentl y gran t ed f ederal h abea s r el i ef

i n a case t h at w as very si m i l ar t o Mil ler- E l II

. R eed argu ed that t h e State’ s r ace- n eu t ralreasons f or exc l udi ng A f

r i c an- A m er i c an j uro r s w er e pr et ext ualbe c ause t he St at e had accepted m an y w h i t e j u rors w h o ha d the sam e character i st i cs as t h e ex clu ded A fr ic a n -A m e r ic a n ju r o r s . R eed , 555 F

. 3d at 368
. W e fi rstcon cl u ded tha t , based
u pon T exas ca se law , R eed’ s c om pa rat i ve an al ysi s argum en tw as not pro c edur al l y bar r ed i n t he Texas C our t of C ri m i nalA ppeal s and, henc e, w as
su b j ect to rev i ew b y t h i s cou rt. I d. at 369

- 71. W e t h en deci ded t h at, even th ou gh a com p a ra ti ve a n a l ys i s a rg u m en t h a d n ot b ee n co n sider ed by the state
c o u r ts , it c o u ld b e co n s id e r e d in a fe d e r a l h a b e a s p r o c e e d in g . I d. a t 3 7 1 -7 5
. T h is
co u rt s u p p o rte d its c o n clu sio n b y re v iew in gth e p ro ce d u ra l h isto ry of Mi l l e r - El II

. I d. at370- 75. T h e R eedcou rt stated tha t w e h a d r e c e n tl y a gr ee d tha t Mil ler- E l II
r equi r es us t o c ons i dera c om par at i ve anal ys i s i n a B ats on c la im

. I d. at373 ( c i t i ng Un i t e d S t a t e s v . B r o wn , 5 5 3 F .3 d 7 6 8 , 7 9 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (d ir e c t a p p e a l) ) ; cf

. Un i t ed S t ate s v. G u err a-Marez , 928 F

. 2d 665 , 673 n . 9 ( 5th C i r. 1 991 ) ( w h en consi deri n g an al l egati on of pret ext, defen da n tm u stconvi n ce t h e di st ri ctcourt Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

11 t h at t h e prosecuti on ’ s prof fered reasons are pretext u al by i n t rodu ci n g “ evi den ce o f c o m pa rabi l i t y”)

. Sp eci f i cal l y, t h e R eedcourtnoted t h at t h e Br o wn court determ i n ed “t h ere [ w as] som e i n di cat i on t h at bot h the prosecuti on an d the court fai l e d t o t ak e t he c o m pa r at i ve fe at ur e s of t w o ve ni r e m e m be r s i nt o ac c o unt , ” a nd i tconcl u ded , af

t er c om pa ri n g t h ose t w o m em bers, tha t , un der Mil ler- E l II, a f u rt h er expl an ati on f

rom t h e p rosec u t i on forthe di sm i ssalof t h e excl u ded j u ror
w a s n e c e s s a r y . I

d. at 373

- 74. Th e R eedcourtultim atel y concl u ded , af t er consi deri n g, am on g ot h er t h i n gs, R eed’ s c om pa rat i ve j u ror an al ysi s, t h at R eed
w as enti t l ed to h abea s r el i ef w i t h r e sp e ct to hi s B ats on cla im

. I d. at375- 82. Thi s c o ur tt he r e f

o r e r e ve r s e d t h e d i s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n de nyi ng r e l i e f a nd
r e m a n d e d t h e c a s e t o t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t w ith in s tr u c tio n s to g r a n t t h e w r it. I d.
a t 3 8 2
. W hen r evi ew i ng a B ats on rul i ng r e ga r di ng pur po s e f uldi s c r i m i nat i o n, t he Supr e m e Cour tha s i ni t i al l y c o ns i de r e d s t at i s t i c alev i de nc e w he n c o ns i de r i ng
w h et h er t h e pro s e c ut i o n us e d i t s pe r e m pt o r y st ri kes i n a di scr i m i n ator y m an n er. S ee Miller -E l I, 5 3 7 U .S . a t 3 4 2 ; Mil ler- E l II, 5 4 5 U .S . a t 2 4 0 -4 1
. I n Mi l l e r - El I, pr o s e c ut o r s us e d t e n o f t he i r f o ur t e e n pe r e m pt o r y s t r i ke s ag ai ns tA f r i c anA m e r ic a n v e n ir e m e m b e r s , th e r e b y e x c lu d in gn in e ty -o n e p e r c e n t o f th e e lig ib le A fri ca n -A m erican ve n i re m em b ers. M il le r -E l I, 5 3 7 U .S . a t 3 4 2
. T h e C ou rt
con cl u d ed tha t “ [h]ap p en stan ce is un l i k ely to p rod u ce th i s d i sp a ri ty. ” I d. I n t he i n st an tcase, t h e prosecutorused ei gh t of hi s el even perem ptory s t ri kes aga i n st A fr ic a n - A m e r ic a n v e n ir e m e m b e r s , th e r e b y e x c lu d in g1 0 0 % o f th e e lig ib le Afr i c a n - Am e r i c a n v e n i r e m e m b e r s . W h i l e we a g r e e wi t h t h e d i s t r i c t a nd
m a g is tr a te ju d g e s t h a t th is fa c t a lo n e is n o t d is p o s itiv e , s e e Fi e l ds , 588 F. 3d at 281 , i ti s un l i kely t o be t h e produ ctof ha pp en st an ce and i s i n dica ti ve of d is c r im in a to r y in te n t. Miller -E l I, 5 3 7 U .S . a t 3 4 2
.
“ M o r e po w e r f

ult han t he s e b ar e s t at i s t i c s , ho w e ver , a r e s i de

- by

- s i de
com p a ri son s of som e b l a ck ve n i re p a n eli sts w h o w ere stru ck an d w h i te p a n eli sts Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

12 a l l ow ed to serv e.” Mil ler- E l II, 545 U

. S at 241
. “ [ W ] e ar e al s o co gni z antt hatt he Supr e m e Cour t has m ad e pl ai n t hat ap pe l l at e r e vi e w o f a l l e ge d B ats on e r r o r s is
n ot a h oll ow act. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Wi l l i am son , 533 F. 3d 269, 274 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) ( addre ss i ng a B a tson c hal l e nge o n di r e c tc r i m i nala ppe al)

. So m e t i m e s t he
r e a s o n s g iv e n fo rs tr ik in gju r o r s a r e “r a c e -n e u tr a l” w h e n “[v ]ie w e d in is o la tio n .” Id . at 2 7 5
. “H o w e v e r , th e e x p la n a tio n [s ] [m a y ] fa lte r [] u p o n clo s e re x a m in a tio n .” I d. I n order t o en gag e i n t h e ap propri ate an al ysi s, w e w i l l exam i n e both j u rors an d t h en com pa re t h em t o ot h er n on - A f ri can - A m eri can j u rors w h o w e re n ot
s t r uc k. B

. P rospec t i ve Ju ror Jackson A f t er H ayes obj ect ed that al lel i gi bl e A f ri can - A m erica n v en i re m em bers
w e r e s tru ck in a d iscr im in a to ry m a n n e r in v iola tion of B ats on , t h e prosecutor pro f fer ed num er ous “ r ac e- neut r al” ex pl anat i ons . W i t h re spe ct to J u r or# 16 Jack son , t he pr os ec ut oras se r t ed t he f ol l ow i ng expl anat i ons : ( 1) Jac kso n gave i nc o ns i s t e nta ns w e r s t o q ue s t i o n s regard i ng w he t he rs he w o ul d r e qui r e t he St at e t o i nt r o duc e a f i r e ar m i nt o e vi de nc e t o c o nvi c t H ay e s , t hus i ndi c at i ng s he
m i gh t ho ld t h e S tate to a h i gh er b u rd en of p roo f; ( 2 ) J a ck son stated tha t a pr i m ar y go alo f

t he c r i m i nalj us t i c e s ys t e m w as r e hab i l i t at i o n; a nd ( 3) a tt he t i m e o f t he t r i al , J ac ks o n ha d a c o us i n who was o uto n b o nd i n a pe ndi ng c r i m i nalc as e i n D al l as C ount y, Texas

. H ayes ’ s def ens e c ounse lr es ponded t hat t he St at e ’ s r e as o ns f o rs t r i ki ng Ja c ks o n wer e pr et extual. H e a r gue d t hatt he S t ate used h yp ot h et i calqu est i on s r egard i n g t h e n eed t o see a w eap on as a cover f or i m perm i ssibl y st ri king j u rors by presen t i n g a sl an t ed on e- si ded expl an ati on of t h e w eap o n r e qu i rem en tw i t h ou tf u l l y exp l ori n g i t
. Th e prosecutorargu ed t hat s he pr es ent ed t he ques t i ons fai r l y; t hat al lof t he j uro r s w ho gav e i nco nsi st ent answ er s r egar di ng t he f i r ear m w er e st r uck; t hat pun i shm entw as t he m aj o rf

o c us i n t hi s c a s e ; a nd t ha tt ho s e j ur o r s who r e s p o nd e d t hat puni s hm e nt a n d reha bi l i t at i o n wer e i m po r t antw e r e no ts t r uc k b e c aus e t he Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

13 S t ate had onl y t en str i kes an d that w as al lt h e State h ad t o j u st i f y st ri king those j ur o r s . The s t at e t r i alc o ur to ve r r ul e d H ay e s ’ s o bj e c t i o n as t o J ac ks o n, f i ndi ng t h at Jackso n g a v e i n consi st en tan sw ers regardi n g w h et h er s h e w ou l d requ i re th e S ta te to in tr o d u c e a fir e a r m in to e v id e n c e to co n v ic t H a y e s . In t h e federal di st ri ctcourt , H ayes f ocused on a com pa rat i ve an al ysi s of t h e pool

. H e argu ed that non

- A f ri can - A m eri can Ju ror #5 N ew som e, w h o w as not st ruck b y t h e prosecuti on , al so gav e i n consi st en tan sw ers concerni n g t h e need t o i nt r o duc e a f

i r e ar m t o c o nvi c t
. H ay e s a r gue d t hats e ve r alno n- Af r i c anAm e r i c an j ur o r s , w ho w e r e no ts t r uc k, s t at e d t hat r e hab i l i t at i o n w as o ne o f t he im p o r ta n t g o a ls o f th e cr im in a l ju s tic e s y s te m (S ta n to n # 7 , S te v e n s # 1 8 , F a in # 2 5 , S a p p # 2 7 , O li v a re s # 2 8 , R y a n # 4 1 , D o y le # 4 2 , C ru m p # 4 4 , a n d N o b le # 4 5 ). H ayes a l s o a r gue d t hats e ve r alno n- Af r i c an- Am e r i c an j ur o r s , w ho w e r e not struck, had r el at i ves w ho had be en pr os ec ut ed f orc r i m es and had s t at ed t hat t hey bel i eve d t hat t hei r r el at i ves had r ec ei ved exc es sive se nt enc es ( K ee bl e # 29, A rt i eschou fsky #4 0, R yan #41 ) , w h ereas Jackson st ated t h athe rc o us i n ha d been tr e a te d fa ir ly b y th e cr im in a l ju s tic e s y s te m . The di s t r i c tc o ur tr ej e c t e d t he s e a r gum e nt s a nd f o und t hatt he re as o ns t he S t ate gave f

or s t ri king Ja ckson w ere di st i n gu i sha bl e f rom t h e character i st i cs of th e se a ted j u rors . S p ecif i ca l l y, t h e d i stri ct cou r t d eterm i n ed tha t t h e S tate st r uck Jac kso n i n partbe c ause s he h a d a co usi n w ho had pendi ng c r i m i nal ch a rg es in D a l l a s C ou n ty , a n d n on e of the sea ted j u rors h a d a re l a ti ve w i th pendi ng c r i m i nalc harge s i n D al l as C ount y. The di st r i c tc our tdet er m i ned t hat th e re c o r d in d ic a te d th a t J a c k s o n d id g iv e in c o n s is te n t a n s w e r s w h e n a s k e d if sh e w o u ld requ i re t h e State t o i n t rodu ce a f i rearm i n order t o convi ctH ayes. T h e di st ri ctcourtal so det erm i n ed that J ackson w as d i st i n gu i sha bl e fr om Ju ror #5 N e w s o m e b e c a u s e , in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s v i e w , J a c k s o n g a v e a r g u a b ly i nc o ns i s t e nta ns w e r s c o nc e r ni ng t he ne e d t o pr o duce a fi r e ar m e ve n a f t e rt he l aw w a s e x pl ai n ed. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otadd ress t h e prosecutor ’ s t h i rd Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

I t sho uld be note d th at the federal di strict court mayhave co nfuse d Juror #16 5 Jackson withJuror # 46, whose last namewas also Jackson. Afte r th e trialcourt expl ain ed th e law, th e St atequ es tion edJuro r # 4 6J ack so nc once rnin gth e n ee d top ro duceth e fire arm ; even after the law wa s explaine d, Juror #4 6 Jacksonstated to the prosecuto r th at she “would want to se e th e gun”an d “Iwoul d re quire it.” Durin gth e pros ecution’squ es tionin gab out th e gu n , J ack so n( # 1 6) re sp on de d: 6 Q: Ms. Jackson, okay, yo u want that gun, yo u’regoin g to r equire the Stateto brin g that gun in? A : I f th e St atesay s th at itwa s u se d, I ’dlik e tose e it

. Q: Sureyou’dlike it

. An d that’s the thing , it’s definite ly– as a juror, there ’s all kinds of things you’d like to get. You know, I’d like to know why , I ’d like to understand, I’ d like to see the gun, I ’d like to seeth e blo ody shirt, I’ d like to se e th at knife. You know, th at would make, you know, yo ur job a lot e asier , but – an d Iu nderstand that, but you unde rs tandthat the Sta te is not require d to bring thatin. And that’ s ok ay. Th ere’s allkin d of – yo u know, th ere are peopl e th at say , “I ’m sorry , Ij ust absolutely have toh ave it.” Th at’s okayif yo u feel that way . Yo u feel that way , Ms. J ackson, Juror No. 1 6? 14 r e as o n f o rs t r i ki ng Ja c ks o n, he rs t at e m e nt t hat r e hab i l i t at i o n w as an i m po r t ant g o a l o f th e cr im in a l ju s tic e s y s te m . W e d i s a g r e e wi t h t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t
. Ha y e s h a s s h o wn t hatt he St at e ’ s r e as o ns f o rs t r i king Jac ks o n wer e i m pl aus i bl e o ri nva l i d a nd, t h eref ore, w ere pret exts f or d i scr i m i n ati on . Fir st , regardi n g t h e al l eged i n consi st en cy, Jackson i ni t i al l y s t at e d t hat she thou gh tt h e State shou l d p rodu ce a f i r e ar m i n o r de rt o c o nvi c tH ay e s . Af t e r t he t r i alc o ur te xp l ai ne d t he l aw t o t he j ur y, t he St at e di d no tq ue s t i o n Jac ks o n f ur t he rc o nc e r ni ng i nt r o duc t i o n o f t he f i r ear m . I n re spo nse to defens e c ounse l ’ s ques t i ons , Jac kso n atf i r sts t at ed t hat she w ou l d n eed to see t h e f i rearm i f she d i d n otbel i eve t h e eyew i t n ess; she t h en st ated t h at t h e State n eed n otprodu ce a f i rearm if

sh e bel i eved t h e eyew i t n ess t e s t i m o ny. Ac c o r di ngl y, H aye s ha s s ho w n t hatJ ac ks o n’ s a ns w e r s t o t he que s t i o ns w e r e no ti ncons i s t e nt a nd t hats he ul t i m at e l y ans w e r e d t hatt he 5 S t ate w ou l d n otneed t o produ ce a f i rearm i f

i tpresented cr edi bl e eyew i t n ess t est i m on y. M oreover, t h e prosecutor att em pted t o cha l l en ge Jack son f or c au se 6 Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

A : (Nod s h ea d aff

ir matively .) Th ereafter, the jud gei nt erjected thatth e l aw should be explained to the jury and pr oce ede d to exp lain thatthe elem ent of a firear m bein g used coul d be pro ved in variou s w ays “but it’s not n ecessary that th eyactuallybring a phy sical firearm intoth e co urtro om and show it to you. Theycan do that byevide nce, description , if a person is fa miliar withh andguns or whatever, . . . .” Th e prosecutor did not there after que stionJackson, b ut the defen se di d so yi eldingthis di sc u ssion : Q: Well, yeah , th e question is, when that witne ss testifies and they– you know, if they convinc e you that th eysaw apistol and ther e was a pi stol, would yo u st illh ave to see the pistol ? A : Iwo uldwant to
. Q: Well, sure. Really , we’ da lll ik e t o h ave avideoof it, soth en we’d kno w – so th en we’d kno w because we coul d see it, yo u know. Th en we woul dn’t have toguess. But ther e i sn’t one . But–a nd–I m ean , really , see the que stion ? Do you believe th e witness and does thatproveth e case beyond a reason abl e doubt? Do you believe h er or him whe n theysayth eysaw apistol? If you do, t he n yo u don’ t n eed to se e th e pi st ol

. A : Well , yeah , th at’ s right Iwo uldn ee d tose e th e pi st ol

. Q: You would nee d to? A : I f Ididn’tb elieve th at pe rs on . Q: Of course, if you don’ t b eli eve th e pe rson, theyh aven’tprove d th eir case beyond a re a so n ab ledoub t. A : Right. Q: So yo u coul d get alon g without the pistolif yo u were c onvinc ed apistol was used? A : Igu es s. Q: Well , youc a n’tgu es s. A : Okay . Yes , if

h e we reb eliev ab le , yes .

15 on preci sel y t h ese groun ds bef ore usi n g a perem ptory st ri ke and t h e t ri alcourt
r ul e d t hatJ ac ks o n rem ai ne d q ual i f i e d f o rt he j ur y due t o t he fac tt hats he
a f f i r m a t i v e l y s t a t e d s h e w o u l d a c c e p tt e s t i m o n y i n l i e u o f p h y s i c a le v i d e n c e . As Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 15 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

16 s uc h, a ny m i s pe r c e pt i o n t hatJ ac kson w as inc o ns i s t e ntw as putt o r e s tb y t he t ri alcourtw el lbef

ore t h e p rosec u t or ad van ced i n consi st en cy a s t h e j u st i f i cat i on f ort he St at e’ s st r i ke. N onet hel es s, even i f t he “ i nco nsi st enc y” j ust i f i c at i on w as pl ausibl e no t w i t hst andi ng al l of t he abov e, H ayes c or r ec t l y not es t hat t he t r i al
c o ur t fai l e d t o f

o l l o w t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s c l e arl y es t ab l i s he d B ats on p r o to c o l. Th e r equi r ed c om par at i ve anal ys i s w oul d have dem ons t r at ed t hat non- A f r i c an A m eri can Ju ror N ew som e al so gav e i n consi st en tan sw ers t o t h e sam e ser i es of q u e stio n s. I n s h o rt, a p ro p e r a p p li ca tion of Mil ler E l II i n t he br oade rc ont ext of t h i s vo i r d i re w ou l d h a ve req u i red Ja ck son ’ s rein statem en t. Se c o nd, t he pr o s e c ut o r ’ s “ pe ndi ng c har ge s ” j ust i f i ca t i o n s i m i l ar l y l ac ks cred i b i l i ty, an d the tri a lcou rt’ s con trary con cl u sion ru n s afou lof cl e a r ly
es t abl i she d fede r all aw under t he r equi r ed c om par at i ve f r am ew or k. Al t hough Ja ckson ha d a c o us i n wi t h pe ndi ng c r i m i nalc har ge s , s he a l s o s t at e d t hats he b e l i e v e d h e rc o u s i n w a s b e i n gt r e a t e d fa i r l y i n t h e c r i mi n a lj u s t i c e s y s t e m. M oreover, J ackson st ated t h at her c ou si n ’ s pen di n g case w ou l d n otaf fecther j u ry serv i ce. A l th ou gh n o oth er juro rs h a d fa m i l y m em b ers o r f ri en d s w i th pendi ng c r i m i nalc as es , num er ous j ur o r s h a df a m i l ym e m b e r s orf

r i ends w ho had
c r i m i nalc onvi c t i ons . As H ayes poi nt e do ut , s o m e of t hes e no n- A f

r i c an- A m er i c an potenti alj u rors ha d rel ati ves t h at t h e potenti alj u ror s bel i eved w ere t reat ed unfai r l y byt he s ys t e m o r r e c e i ve d har s h s e nt e nc e s ( K e e bl e # 29 , Ar t i e s c ho ufs ky #40 , an d R yan #41 )

. W h i l e t h e di st ri ctcourtdi vorced t h e q u est i on of pen den cy f rom t h e qu est i on of fai rness/ severi t y, w e f i n d that t h ese t w o conce rn s are i n extr i cabl y i n t ert w i n ed becau se t h e qu al ity o f each j u ror’ s pri or experi en ce d i rectly i n form s th e cre d i b i l i ty of u sing tha t exp erien ce a s a jus ti fi ca ti on to
s tr ik e . V ie w e d in th a t w a y , th e d e c is io n to s tr i k e J a c k s o n , w ith h e rfa v o r a b le vi ew of t he j ust i c e s ys t em , r at hert han K ee bl e, A r t i es c houfsky, or R yan, w ho had per so nalob j ec t i ons t o t hat s am e s ys t em , c annot be j ust i f i ed underc om par at i ve Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 16 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

17 anal ys i s. Agai n, pr ope r l y appl yi ng Mil ler E l II, t h e tri a l courthad c l ear S u p rem e C ou rt gu i d a n ce m a n d a ti n g J a ck son ’ s rein statem en t. H ay e s has t hus s ho w n t hat t he r e as o ns give n by t he St at e for s t ri ki ng J a ck son a ls o a p p li ed to n on -A fri ca n -A m erican j u rors w h o w ere n ot stru ck

. In par t i c ul ar , Jur or# 5 N ew so m e, a non- A f r i c an- A m er i c an pro spe c t i ve j uro r , gave i nc o ns i s t e ntans w e r s co nc e r ni ng t he ne e d t o s e e a f i r e ar m t o c o nvi c t
. N um e r o us
n on - A f ri can - A m eri can j u rors , w h o w ere not st ruck, st ated tha trehab i l i t ati on
w a s a p r im a r yg o a l o f th e c r im in a l ju s tic e s y s te m . (S ta n to n # 7 , S te v e n s # 1 8 , F a in # 2 5 , S a p p # 2 7 , O li v a re s #2 8 , R y a n # 4 1 , D o y le # 4 2 , C ru m p # 4 4 , a n d N o b le # 4 5 ). Se v e r a l n o n - Af

r i c a n - Am e r i c a n j u r o r s , wh o we r e n o t s t r u c k , h a d r e l a t i ve s w ho h a d b e e n p ro se cu te d for cr im e s. (K e e b le # 2 9 , A rtie sc h o u fsk y # 4 0 , R y a n # 4 1 ). W h e n th e s e n o n -A fr ic a n -A m e r ic a n s w e r e q u e s tio n e d fu r th e rco n c e r n in gth e ir rel ati ves w i t h cri m i n alcon vi ct i on s, they stat ed t h at they bel i eved t h ei r r el ati ves received ha rsh sentences. ( K eebl e #29 , A rt ies ch o u fsky #4 0, R yan #41 )

. Juror # 41 R yan w as u l t i m atel y chosen t o serve on t h e j u ry. In view of th ese com pa ri sons, H ayes h as show n tha tt h e st ate t ri alcourtun reasona bl y ap pl i ed
c l e ar l y est abli shed federal l aw i n exam i n i n g t h e prosecutor ’ s r eason s f or s t r i ki ng J a c k s o n . S ee Mil ler- E l II, 5 4 5 U .S . a t 2 4 7 , 2 5 1 -5 2
. C

. P rospec t i ve Ju ror R i cha rd W ith re s p e c t t o J u r o r#1 5 C y n th ia R i c h a r d , t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in def er r i ng t o t he st at e c our t ’ s dec i si on t o a gr eat erdeg r ee t han di r ec t ed by Mi l l erEla nd S nyd er . Th e di st ri ct court st ated t h at “based on al lof t h e ci rcum st an ces, a tr i alcourtcoul d h ave f ou n d that t h e pr o se cu t or l acked cr edi bi l i t y i n her expl anat i on of

w hy she st r uck R i c hard. H ow eve r , the C our tdoes n otagr ee t hat th e tr ia l co u r t w a s o b lig e d to s o fin d .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t ’s a n a ly s is is i nc o ns i s t e ntw i t h t he anal ys i s i n Mil ler- E l II, S nyd er , a nd R eedi n i t s app roach to re v ie w in gth e s ta te co u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n in th o s e ca s e s . Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 17 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

The state trial judge reje cted this reaso n statin g, “Th e few que stion s I h ad d ealt with 7 the qualifications of th e jurors, and ju st ge neral que stion s that was [sic] directed to the entire pan ela s to wh eth ero r n otth eyc ouldacc ep t ce rt ainp ro po sition s of th e law.” Appell ee makes much of th e fact th at Haye s ha s suppl ement ed th e re cord to include 8 th e j uro r card s from th e trial a n d a j uro r ratin g fo rm to a ssi st th e co mp arative analy si s. Appe lle e cl aims we ar e barre d from consi derin g thi s information as it was not presented to th e state appellatecourts. This argu ment is without merit. We haveheld that we will consi der additional information whe re evi dencepre sente d suppl ement s but doe s no t fu ndame ntally alt er th e cl aim pr es ente d toth e st atec ourt s. Ande rsonv. J ohnson , 33 8 F .3d 3 82, 386 -87 (5th Cir. 2 003). Haye s has consi stently argued that th e prosecutor offeredpre textual j ustifications for striking

the African-American jurors. In provi ding th e j urorcards an d printouts, Hayes merelyadd ed evi denti arysupport toth e cl aim he has raise d ineverycourt toaddress his ca se. Id

. at38 7-88(holdin g that pre sentinga habea s claim in a “stronger evi denti aryposture” does not trigge r an exh austion dismissalw herethe petitio ner does not seek toadvanc e “agroun d [for r eli ef] th at is entirelyindepen dent of the gro und s presented in the state courts.” (intern al qu ot ationmark s an d citation s o mitt ed))

. Furth er mo re , th es e j uro r card s arenotc a se dispositive . The state trial j udge also discou nted the“b ad j urorrating” j ustification. Hayes notes 9 thatanother non- African- Ame ric an pro sp ect ive juror , D ebor ah Noble , had a “badjuror rat ing” butsat as an alternate. 18 Th e p ros ec ut oradvanc ed t hre e a l l ege dl y r ac e- neut r als ubj ec t i ve e xp l ana t i o ns f

o rst r i ki ng Ri c har d: ( 1) she w as “ ho s t i l e , ” ( 2) s he fai l e d t o r e s po nd t o the j u dg e’ s qu est i on s ; a n d sh e ha d a “bad j u ror rat i n g. ” Th e prosecutoral so 7
o f fe r e d t w o “ o bj e c t i ve ” j us t i f i c at i o ns : ( 1) Ri c har d was e m pl o ye d a s a t e ac he ra nd ( 2) she sel ect ed “r eh abil i t ati on ” as an i m portant goalof t h e cr i m i n alj u st i ce syst em . Th e “ obj ect i ve” fact ors are quic kly di spatched : t w o w h i t e j u rors w ere t each ers an d served on t h e j u ry; ot h er persons w h o sel ect e d r e hab i l i t at i on ser ved
o n t he j ur y and , no t ab l y, Ri c har d d i d no ti n fac ts e l e c tt he “ reha bi l i t at i o n”
o pt i o n. 8 T h e sta te tri a lj u d ge also d i d n ot ap p ea r to cred i t t h ese rea son s bu t, i n st ead , f

ocused on t h e “ h ost i l i t y” pron g. W h i l e S nyd errequ i res defer en ce t o a 9 st ate t ri alcourt ’ s f

i n d in g o f

cr edi bi l i t y, t h e st ate t ri alj u dg e here di d n ot
e x p r e s s ly fin d th a t t h e e x p la n a tio n w a s tr u th fu l. S ee S nyd er , 128 S. C t
. at1209. Inst ead , t h e t ri alcourtf ocused on t h e concept t h at host i l i t y i s a val i d ba si s f or Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 18 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

Anysen se th at the state trial j udge i mplicitly foun d th e prosecutor to b e gene rally 10 crediblean d freefrom race -basedbi as i s un dermin ed b y the sustainin g of th e Batsonchallen ge as toHashaway. I t i s inconsi stent to say the prosecutor is alway s credibleab out motivatio ns and yet s ay that thepros ecut or w as notc r e d ible asto the mo tive in st rik ing Has haw ay. Addition ally, the trial j udge di scounted ot he rp roffere d re ason s as to Rich ard, such as h er all egednon -r es po n siven es s to hisqu es tion s. 19 st ri king a j u ror. B u tt h e st ate trial j u dg e st ated t h at he observed n o such ho s t i l i t y f

r o m Ri c har d. M o r e i m po r t ant l y, he ne ve rm ad e a ny f i ndi ng r e ga r di ng
w he t he r“ ho s t i l i t y ” was t he p r o s e c ut o r ’ s t r ue m o t i v e . Ta ke n a g a i ns tt he t r i al
c o u r t’s s ta te m e n ts w ith r e s p e c t to b o th J u r o rH a s h a w a y a n d J u r o rJ a c k s o n , it ap pea rs t h at t h e t ri alj u dg e’ s ana l ysi s w as base d u pon w h et h er t h e prof fered exp l an ati on w as a “ vali d” r eason t o st ri ke a j u ror perem ptori l y, not on w h et h er t he r eas on given w as “ t r ue” or , m or e po i nt edl y, w h eth er t he pr os ec ut orw as t el l i n g t h e t ruth. In t h i s respect , t h en , t h e st ate t ri alj u dg e un reasona bl y fai l ed t o a p p l y c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d l a w t o t h e fa c t s b y fa i l i n g t o e x a m i n e n o t j us t t he
v a lid ity o f th e re a s o n b u t t h e cr e d ib ility o f th e p r o s e c u to r . T h is is p a r tic u la r ly 10 a problem b ecau se n ei t h er the j u dg e nor defense c ou n selobserved t h i s s u pp osed h o s tilit y . T h u s , w h ile it is tr u e th a t h o s tilit y to w a r d s a la w y e rco u ld b e a v a lid
r ac e - ne ut r alr e as o n t o s t r i ke a pr o s pe c t i ve j ur o r , w e ha ve no c l e ara ns w e rt o t he qu est i on of

w h et h er R i cha rd w as act u al l y h ost i l e. T h e an sw ers t o t h e voi r di re qu est i on s evi n ce no hosti l i t y. Th e j u dg e saw n on e. Th e j u dg e di d n ot
a ff i rm a ti ve l y fi n d the pr ose cu tor’ s testi m on y cre d i b l e, on l y th e rea son given to b e on e th a t, i f tru e, is a v a lid re a son to stri k e. T h i s ca se is t h u s si m i l a r to S nyd erw he r e no f

i ndi ng as t o de m e ano rw as m ad e , a nd t he U ni t e d St ates S u p rem e C our tf

ound no def

er enc e c oul d t hus be gi ven. 128 S. C t
. at1209. A ccord i n gly, th e sta te cou rt’ s fa i l u re to ov erru l e th e stri k e of R i ch a rd rep rese n ts
an un reasona bl e app l i cat i on of cl earl y est abli shed l aw t o t h e fact s. I V. C ONC L US I ON Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 19 Date Filed: 01/19/2010N o. 08- 10057

20 T h e di st ri ctcourtcor rect l y n ot ed the h i gh l y defer en t i alA E D P Arevi ew st an da rd f

or t h i s c ase. H ow ever, as nu m e ro u s c ases f rom t h e Su prem e C ou rt
an d ou r c ou rth ave m ad e cl ear, t h e deference i s not u n l i m i t ed. W h ere, as here, t he s t at e co ur tunr e as o nab l y ap pl i e d Sup r e m e Cour tpr e c e de ntt o t he fac t s , t he fe de r alc o urt s m us ta c tt o c o r r e c tt he e r r o r . The r e f o r e , w e RE VE RSE a nd RE M AN D w i t h i ns t r uc t i o ns t o g r ant t he w r i t , s e t as i de H ay e s ’ s c o nvi c t i o n a nd sentence, an d or der H ayes’ s rel ease f rom custody u n l ess t h e State gran t s H ayes a n ew tr i a lwi t hi n a r e a s o na b l e t i m e t o b e s e ta s a d a t e c e r t a i n b y t he fede r al di s t r i c tc o ur ti n i t s o r de ro n r e m and

. R E V E R S E D an d R E M A N D E D w i t h i n st ructi on s. Case: 08-10057 Document: 00511007241 Page: 20 Date Filed: 01/19/2010