N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DEW OYNE C UR T IS POTTS,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. JOHN GAR

ZA, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 17-56410 D.C . No. 2:07-c v-01312-PSG-AJW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 14, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, C HR ISTEN, a nd R . NELSON, C irc uit Judge s. De woy ne Potts a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of his ha be a s pe tition that a lle ge d tha

t the prose c utor’ s pe re m

ptory c ha lle nge to a

n Afric an-Am e ric an juror in his sta

te robbe ry

tria l wa s ra c ia lly

m o tiva te d . The distric t c ourt, on re m and from the Ninth C irc uit, he ld a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring a llowing the

sta t e to proffe r a 

# FIL ED MAR 2 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.ra c i a lly ne utra l ba s is for the c ha lle nge and for pe titione r to re but tha t showing. The prose c utor a sse rte d he ha d e xc use d Juror 2405 be c a u se he r son ha d re c e ntly be e n m iside ntifie d a s a

c rim ina l suspe c t a

nd he l d ove rnight by

the polic e . The distric t c o urt c onc lude d

tha t this wa s a

n a de quate ra c e -ne utra l re a son, a nd tha t Potts ha d not de m onstra

te d tha t ra c e wa s a

substa ntia l m otiva

ting fa c tor be hind the pe re m ptory c ha lle nge . W e a ffirm
. 1 In Batson v
. K

e ntuc k y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supre m e C ourt se t out a thre e -ste p burde n-shifting fra m e work for e va luating c la im s of disc rim inatory pe re m ptory strike s. At step one , the de fe n da nt (pe titione r) be ars the burde n of produc ing suffic ie nt e vide n c e to pe rm it the tria l judge to dra wan infe re nc e of disc rim ination; a

t step two, the burde n shifts to the sta t e to e xpla in the ra c ia l
e xc lusion by

offe ring pe rm issiblera c e -ne utra l justific ations for thestrike ; a nd at ste p thre e the tria l c ourt m ust de te rm ine “ whe the r the oppone nt of thestrike ha s prove d purpose ful ra c ia l disc rim ination.” S hirle y v . Yate s , 807 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th C ir. 2015). Our prior m e m orandum

disposition in this c a s e , P o tts v . Harman , 588 F. App’ x 620 (9th C i r. 2014), e sta blishe d first tha

t be c a use the sta

t e c ourt a pplie d a n

1 The fa c ts a

re fam ilia r to the pa rtie s a nd a re re s tate d

he re only a s ne c e ssa ry to re solve the issue s pre se nte d by this a ppe a l. 2im

prope r sta nda rd (“ strong like lihood” ), the fe de ra l c ourts ha d to a pply Batson de novo. Se c ond, we de te rm ine d tha t Potts ha d m e t his burde n of e sta blishing a prim a fa c i e c a se of purpose ful disc rim inat ion. Ac c ordingly , on re m and, the distric t c ourt he ld a n e vide ntia

ry he aring to a llow thesta

t e to offe r ra c e -ne utra l justific ations for striking Juror 2405, a

nd for Potts to re

but a ny suc h showing. The

distric t c ourt
c onc lude d at step thre e tha t Potts “h a d not de m onstra te d tha t ‘ ra c e wa s a substa ntia l m otiva

ting fa c tor’ in [the prose c utor’ s] strike of Juror 2405.” The de nia l of a

ha be a s pe tition is revie w e d de novo, Hunton v
. Sinc lair , 732 F.3d 1124, 1125 (9th C ir. 2013), but the distric t c o urt’ s de te rm ination c onc e rning purpose ful disc rim ination a t the third step of the Batson inquiry is a que s tion of fa c t tha t is re vie we d for c le ar e rror. Shirle y , 807 F.3d a

t 1107; Paulino v . Harrison , 542 F.3d 692, 699 (9th C ir. 2008). Thepe titione r ha s the ultim ate burde n of proving purpose ful disc rim ination by a pre ponde ra

nc e of the e vide nc e . C urrie v . Mc Dow e ll , 825 F.3d 603, 605 (9th C ir. 2016). To prove a B atson viola tion, a pe titione r m

ust de m onstra

te tha t ra c e wa s a

substa ntia l m otiva

ting fa c t or in the prose c utor’ s use of the pe re m p tory c h a lle n ge . Id
. at

606. Howe ve r, the d istric t c o urt’ s e va luation of theprose c utor’ s sta t e of m ind is e ntitle d to
c onside ra ble de fe re nc e . He rnande z v . N e w York , 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991); C ook
v . LaMarque , 593 F.3d 810, 815 (9th C ir. 2010).
3The prose c utor m a inta ins tha t he e xc use d Juror 2405 be c a use , within a

y e ar of the tria l, he r son ha d be e n m iside ntifie d a s a c rim ina l suspe c t a

nd he ld in ja il
ove rnight. Thedistric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t this wa s a

ra c e -ne utra l re a son e ve n though Juror 2405’ s son wa s Afric an-Am e ric an a nd the wom an who m i side ntifie d him wa s white . This de te rm ination is re a sona ble , pa rtic ula rly a s the tria l judgein 2002 que stione d whe the r Juror 2405, de spite be ing “ v e ry hone st a nd c a n did,”
c ould put the

inc ide nt out of he r m ind. The prose c utor’ s fa ilure to furthe r que stion Juror 2405 doe s not show pre t e xt, nor doe s his que stioning of Jurors 7027 a nd 1612. Onc e Juror 2405
re ve a le d the inc ide nt with her son a nd sta te d tha t she did not think it would a ffe c t he r pe rform an c e a s a

juror, the re wa s no a

ppa re nt ne e d for the prose c utor to a sk
a dditional que stions. Also, the re we re ra c e -ne utra l re a s ons for the prose c utor’ s que stioning of othe

r pote ntia l jurors, suc h a s Jurors 7027 a nd 1612, be c a

use the i r
answe rs re ve a l e d inc ide nts tha t , a lthough more re m o te in tim e tha n Juror 2405’ s son’ s m ista

ke n a rre st, m ight ha

v e c re ate d

bia s a ga inst thepolic e . Fina lly , the re c ord a de quate ly supports the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t the p rose c utor wa s c re dible de s pite his a ppa re nt m issta

te m e nt of Juror 2405’ s position to the

tria l c o urt in 2002 a

n d a “ sloppy or m isle a ding” de c la

ration som e thirte e n y e a

rs late r c onc e rning his re m e m b ranc e of a lle ge dly

c o m pa rative jurors.
4The distric t c ourt found theprose c utor “ to be a c o nsc ie ntious a

nd e arne s t witne ss who a tte m p te d to a n s we r que stions de signe d to fine ly pa rse his m e m ory

of e ve nts that oc c urre d m ore tha

n a de c a d e e arlie r a s hone stly and pre c ise ly

a s possible ,” an d
c om m e nte d tha

t, “ in c ritic a l re spe c ts, his te stim ony wa s both interna lly c onsiste nt
and c onsiste nt with his prior de position te stim ony .” Potts ha s not shown tha t the distric t c o urt’ s c re dibility de te rm ination wa s c le arly e rrone ous. Following our re m and the distric t c ourt he ld a n e vide ntia

ry he aring on Potts’ prim a fa c ie showing of purpose ful disc rim ination a nd de te rm ine d tha

t Potts ha d fa ile d to show tha

t ra c e wa s a

substa ntia l m otiva

ting fa c tor in there c usa l of Juror 2405. As the

distric t c ourt’ s de te rm i nations a re re a sona

bly supporte d by

the
re c o rd, unde r the a

pplic a ble sta nda rd of re vie w, the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of Potts’ ha be a s pe tition is AFFIRM E D
.

5