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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALONZO DEON JOHNSON, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

CLAUDE E. FINN, Warden, 

 Respondent. /

DARRYL L. THOMPSON, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, 

 Respondent. 

______________________________/

No. 2:03-CV-2063 JAM JFM (HC) 

No. 2:04-CV-2208 JAM JFM (HC) 

ORDER

Petitioners, state prisoners proceeding through counsel, 

filed applications for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

General Order No. 262. 

1 

Case 2:04-cv-02208-JAM-JFM Document 54 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 4
On August 19, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and 

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and 

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty 

days. Respondent has filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations. 

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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 

entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to 

be supported by the record and by proper analysis with the 

exception of the findings and recommendations concerning 

Petitioners’ Batson claim with respect to prospective juror Mr. 

Jones. In particular, this Court finds that Petitioners failed 

to satisfy the third step in the Batson analysis for prospective 

juror Mr. Jones, i.e. the Petitioners did not show that the 

totality of circumstances raises an inference that the strike 

was motivated by race. The record in this case shows the 

prosecutor put forward evidence of legitimate, race-neutral 

reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge against Mr. Jones, 

and Petitioners did not prove purposeful racial discrimination 

by the prosecutor. Accordingly, Respondents’ objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations on this issue 

are sustained. 

In preparing for the January 30, 2008, hearing before 

Magistrate Judge Moulds, the prosecutor had the benefit of his 

notes from voir dire, the jury questionnaires, and the 

transcript from trial. At the hearing, the prosecutor provided 

2 

Case 2:04-cv-02208-JAM-JFM Document 54 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 4
several reasons, taken together, for exercising a peremptory 

challenge against Mr. Jones. The prosecutor testified Mr. Jones 

was late to the first day of jury selection; he erroneously got 

into the hardship line; he made a flippant and disrespectful 

comment to the court; his jury questionnaire indicated he was 

youthful and lacked maturity and experiences outside the home; 

he was from Stockton; he worked alone, as opposed to with 

others, in his occupation; he was the only prospective juror who 

misspelled his own occupation; he believed defense attorneys 

“defin the guilty” and witnesses are “the same until there are 

proven guilty, they are inocent;” he believed that anyone should 

be allowed to carry a firearm at any time; he was willing to use 

deadly force to protect people in his home; and he had never 

heard of any Stockton gangs. The prosecutor drew negative 

inferences about Mr. Jones’ ability to understand the complex 

case before the court, follow the court’s instructions, and be 

honest with the court. 

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

Each reason above was not cited by the prosecutor as an 

independent basis for excusing Mr. Jones from the venire; 

rather, it was the combination of these problematic traits that 

gave rise to the strike. A comparative juror analysis reveals 

that no other juror shared more than one of the above cited 

problematic traits in common with Mr. Jones. 

Two other important reasons were cited for excusing Mr. 

Jones from the jury. Before trial, the prosecutor read and 

scored all jury questionnaires on a scale of one to five, five 

being the most desirable juror. Mr. Jones received a two on his 

jury questionnaire, a very low number according to the 

3 

Case 2:04-cv-02208-JAM-JFM Document 54 Filed 03/23/10 Page 3 of 4
prosecutor, and the lowest score of a seated juror was three. 

Moreover, Mr. Jones’ jury questionnaire contained an answer that 

was “fatal,” providing what the prosecution deemed an 

independent basis for the strike. Mr. Jones stated in his 

questionnaire that he would not follow the court’s instructions 

if they were different from his own personal views. 

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

The above reasons provide a sufficient, race-neutral basis 

for exercising a peremptory strike against potential juror Mr. 

Jones, and Petitioners failed to provide evidence that the 

prosecutor removed Mr. Jones from the jury based on purposeful 

racial discrimination. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Johnson 

and Thompson’s applications for a writ of habeas corpus be 

denied. 

Dated: March 22, 2010 

4 

Case 2:04-cv-02208-JAM-JFM Document 54 Filed 03/23/10 Page 4 of 4