Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30721

R AY M O N D W A D E , P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. B U R L C A IN , W A R D E N , L O U IS IA N AS T A T E P E N IT E N T IA R Y , 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 ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 5: 05- c v- 876

B e fo r e D e M O S S , E L R O D , a n d H AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * R a ym on d W a d e w a s con victed of secon d -deg ree m u rd er a n d sen ten ced to l i fe i m pr i s o nm e nt
. Af t e re xhaust i ng hi s s t at e c o ur tr e m e di e s , W ad e f i l e d a hab e as pe t i t i o n i n t he fe de r aldi s t r i c tc o ur t
. The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d t he req u ested reli ef, a n d W a d e ap p ea l ed

. W e i ssu ed a certif i ca te o f a p p ea l a b i l i ty (“ C O A ”) on s e v e r a l i ssu es re l a ted to t h e a l l eg ed de n i a lof W a d e’ s F ou rteen th A m en dm en tri gh tt o equ alprot ect i on un der B at s on v. K e nt ucky , 476 U

. S. 79 (19 8 6 ), i n cl u d i n g th e issu e of w h eth er a com p a ra ti ve j u ror a n a l ys i s su p p orts United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 9, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-30721 Document: 00511076098 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 30721

2 W ad e’ s Bat s o n cl ai m s. B ecau se a com pa rat i ve j u ror an al ysi s does not sup port W ad e’ s Bat s o n c la im s , w e a ffir m . I. A s al l eged , W ad e m ay on l y obtai n ha beas rel i ef on h i s Bat s o n c l ai m s by show in g t h at t h e L ou i si an a S u prem e C ou rt ’ s deci si on den yi n g h i s B ats on cha l l en ge w as based on an “ u n reasona bl e deter m i n ati on of the fact s i n l i gh tof th e evide n ce p rese n ted

. ” Mi l l e r - E lv. D r e t ke , 545 U

. S. 231 , 2 40 ( 20 05 ) ( quo t i ng 28 U

. S. C

. § 2254( d) ( 2) )

. The s t at e c our t ’ s fac t ualf i ndi ngs ar e pr es um ed t o b e
s o u n d u n le s s re b u tt e d w ith cle a ra n d co n v in c in ge v id e n c e . Id

. ( quot i ng § 2 2 5 4 (e )(1 )). Th e Supre m e Courtar t i c ul ated a thr ee - st ep pr oc es s f oradj udi c at i ng a c l ai m t hat a pe r em pt or y c hal l enge w as bas ed o n ra c e— a Bat s o n c h a lle n g e . F i rst, a d efen d a n t m u st m a k e a pr i m a fa ci e sh ow i n g th a t a p e re m ptory c h al l en ge h as been exerci sed on t h e basi s of race; second, i f

t h at s h ow i n g h as been m ad e, t h e prosecuti on m u stof fer a ra c e -n e u tr a l b a s is fo rs tr ik in gth e ju r o rin q u e s tio n ; a n d t h ir d , in l i ght o f t he pa r t i e s ’ s ubm i s s i o ns , t he t r i al c o ur t m ust det e r m i ne w he t he rt he de fe nda ntha s s ho w n pu r po s e f uldi s c r i m i nat i o n. Snyd e rv. Lo ui s i ana , 552 U

. S. 472, 476- 77 ( 2008) ( quot i ng Mi l l e r - El , 545 U

. S. at 2 7 7 ) (T h om a s, J., dissen ti n g)) (i n tern a l m a rk s om i tted). O n ap p ea l , w e ev a l u a te “w h eth er t h e tri a lcou rt’ s d eterm i n a ti on of th e p rose cu tor’ s n eu trali ty w i th
r e s pe c tt o r ac e w as o bj e c t i ve l y unr e as o nab l e and ha s b e e n r e but t e d b y c l e ara nd
con vin ci n g e vid en ce to th e con trary
. ” Murphy v. D r e t ke , 4 1 6 F

. 3 d 4 2 7 , 4 3 2 ( 5 th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Miller -E l v. Co ck re ll , 5 3 7 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 4 1 (2 0 0 3 )). Af t e rt he St at e us e d t hr e e o f f o ur pe r e m pt o r y c hal l e nge s t o s t r i ke Af r i c anA m erican ve n i rem e n , de fen se co u n sel m a d e h i s f i rst B ats on c h a l l e n g e . H e ar gue d t hatt he hi gh pe r c e nt ag e o f pe r e m pt o r y c hal l e nge s us e d a ga i ns tAf r i c anA m er i c ans e st abl i she d a pat t er n of ex c l udi ng A f

r i c an- A m er i c ans. The t r i al j u dg e noted t h at he paid ext rem el y cl ose at t en t i on t o t h e voi r di re proc eedi n gs, Case: 08-30721 Document: 00511076098 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 30721

3 t ook copi ou s notes , an d w as sensi t i ve t o t h e B ats on i s s u e . H e f o u n d n o p r i ma faci e show i n g t h at t h e State u sed perem ptory c h al l en ges on th e b a sis of race. H o w e ve r , t o pr e s e r ve t he r e c o r d f o rr e vi e w , he no t e d t hathe w o u l d h ave t he S t ate art i cul ate reasons f or st ri king t h e j u rors at a l atertim e . H e furt h er
m e n tio n e d th a t t h e S ta te co u ld k e e p its v o ird ir e n o te s . The St at e us e d i t s ne xt p erem pt o r y c hal l e nge t o s t r i ke a no t he rAf r i c anA m eri can , an d d efen se c ouns e lm ad e a no t h er B ats on chal l en ge. D efen se c ou n sel
s t at e d t hatt he St at e ha d us e d fo urt o f i ve c hal l e nge s o n pr o s pe c t i ve Af r i c anAm e r i c an m al e s . H e a s s e r t ed t h att hi s pa r t i c ul arpa ne lha d ni ne Cauc as i ans a n d th r e e A fr ic a n -A m e r ic a n s b e fo r e ch a lle n g e s fo rca u s e a n d th e o th e rp a n e ls had b e e n pr e do m i nat e l y Cauc as i an. H e no t e d t hatt he r e w e r e no Af r i c anAm e r i c an m al e s o n t he j ur y and o nl y t w o Af r i c an- Am e r i c an fe m al e s . Aga i n, t he j udge foun d t hatt he f i r s ts t e p i n B ats on h a d n o tb e e n m e ta n d d e n ie d W a d e ’s
c h a lle n g e . A ft er th e tw elf

th m em b er of the j u ry h a d be en selected , th e Sta te u sed i ts
o nl y p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e f o rt h e a l t e r n a t e j u r o r s t o s t r i k e a n o t h e rAf r i c anAm e r i c an. D e fe ns e c o uns e l ag ai n o bj e c t e d t o t he us e o f t he c hal l e nge , a nd t he j udg e no t e d d e fe ns e c o uns e l ’ s pos i t i o n a nd s um m ar i l y de ni e d t he o bj e c t i o n. W ad e’ s j u ry consi st ed of t en C au casi an s and t w o A f ri can - A m eri can s. T h e j u ry f

ou n d W ad e gu i l t y of

t h e l esseri n cl u ded cr i m e of sec on d-degree
m urde rand s ent enc ed hi m t o l i fe i m pri so nm ent
. H e t hen m ove d f ora new t r i al
o n t he bas i s t hatt he St at e us e d p e r e m pt o r y c hal l e nge s t o s ys t e m at i c al l y e xc l ude A fri ca n -A m erican s f rom the j u ry . T h e ju d ge ag a i n f ou n d tha t W a d e fail ed to
m ak e a pr im a faci e show i n g of di scr i m i n ator y u se of perem ptory c h al l en ges. H ow ev er, “f

or ap p ell a te p u rp ose s, ” th e j u d ge i n stru cted th e Sta te to arti cu l a te i t s r eason s f

or st ri king t h e A f

ri can - A m eri can v en i rem en . F or each of the st ruck
ven i rem en , t h e Stated i den t i f i ed severalreasons j u st i f yi n g i t s use of

t h e st ri ke. Case: 08-30721 Document: 00511076098 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 30721

B ecau se th e co mparativej uroran aly sis re solves all outstandin g issues, we ne ed not 1 se parate lyc on si de r eachp oint onwhichwegrante d aC OA

. 4 T h e j u dg e f

ou n d the S t ate’ s r eason s t o be race- n eu t ral an d d en i ed W ad e’ s m ot i on f o rne w t r i al

. H e a ppe al e d. O n app eal , W a d e sp eci f i cal l y com pl ai n ed that t h e State’ s r eason s f or st ri kin g K erri ck M art i n , C l aren ce B el l , Sa n dra S m i t h B el l , an d F ost er D u kes,

“ w e r e no ts uf

f i c i e nt l y r ac e ne ut r ala nd a ppe ar e d t o be a ve i l e d e f f o r tt o e xc l ude i ndi vi dua l s o f t he s am e c o l o ra s de fe nda nt
. ” Agr e e i ng w i t h t he t r i alc o ur t , t he Loui s i ana Se c o nd Ci r c ui tCour to f Appe alf

o und t he St at e ’ s r e as o ns f o rs t r i ki ng t he f o urAf r i c an- Am eri c an ve ni r e m e n t o b e r ac e - ne ut r al

. The Lo ui s i ana S u p r e m e C o u r t d e n ie d W a d e ’ s p e tit io n fo rw r it o f c e r tio r a r i. W ad e t he n s o ugh tha be as r e l i e f i n t he Lo ui s i ana s t at e c o ur t s o n v ar i o us ot h er groun ds an d af t er exh au st i n g t h ose c l ai m s, m oved f or f ederal ha beas rel i ef
u n der 28 U

. S

. C

. § 2254 i n t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof L ou i si an a. T h e di st ri ctcourt d e n ie d a ll re lie f. II. T h e onl y i ssue on a pp ealis w h et h er W ad e d em on st rat ed t h at hi s B ats on cha l l en ge w as den i ed becau se of an un reasona bl e de te rm i n ati on of t h e fact s. 1 A l t h ou gh t h e t ri alcourtden i ed W ad e’ s Bat s o n ch a l l en ge be ca u se W a d e fail ed to
e s t ab l i s h B ats on ’ s f

i r s ts t e p, w e ha ve he l d t hat“ ap pe l l at e r e vi e w s ho ul d not bec om e b ogg ed do w n on t he ques t i on o f w het hert he def

endant m a d e a p r i ma f ac i e s h o w in gin ca s e s w h e r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s re q u ir e d a n e x p la n a tio n .” Un i t ed S t ate s v. F

orbes , 816 F. 2d 1006, 1010 (5 t h C i r . 1987)

. W hen t he t r i al court requ i res t h e State t o art i cul ate i t s reason s f or st ri king a ven i rem an , even
w h en the tri a l cou rt d oe s n ot b eli ev e defen se co u n sel m et B ats on ’ s f i r s ts t e p, t he ap pe l l at e c o ur ts ho u l d r e vi e w t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f i ndi ngs o n pu r po s e f ul d is c r im in a tio n . I

d. ; accord Hernan d ez v. New Y ork , 500 U

. S. 352, 359 ( 1991) ( pl ur al i t y) ( “ O n ce a pr o s e c ut o rha s o f fe r e d a r ac e - ne ut r ale xp l ana t i o n f o rt he Case: 08-30721 Document: 00511076098 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 30721

Wa de also asserts that th e “b are statistics” in this case support a finding of purposeful 2 discrimi na t io n. Wadealleges th at his ve nir e panelcon sisted of sixty -six peopl e, twenty of whom whe re African-American. Th ere i s n o evi denceinth e re cord to support Wade ’s propositionth at his ve nir e panelinclu ded twentyAfrican-Americans. Furthe r, th e trialcourt explained anydisparityby statin g that “the re were a numb er of prospective jurors who were African -American , who indicate d th at und er no wayan d u nder no circu mstancewoul d th ey impose the deathpen alty , which mean s that th ey[were] excused for c ausepursuant toth e law .” Wa de als o argu es th at th er e wa s a j ury shuff le a n d th at th e St ate a sked juror Ivy Woodard-Latin, a Cauca sianw oman , the fewest numb er of questio ns. Th e State avers th at no jury shuffl e o ccurr ed andt ha tW oodard-Latin was anAfrican-American woman. Wa de fai ledto dire ct th e court to theport ion of the rec ordthat s u p p o r t s h is p os itio n and wehave foun d no indic atio n that aj uryshuffle occurred or thatWo odard-L atin was Cauca sian . Wade’s arguments ar e without merit. The Statear gu es th at we sho uld not consi der Wade ’s co mparativean aly sis argu ment 3 because Waden ever p resented the argume ntto the state court. Th e St ate’ s argument i s fo re clos ed

. See Reed

v. Qu arterman , 55 5 F .3d 3 64, 37 4-75 (5 th Cir. 2 009) (explainin g that because the “compar ative analysis rests o n the enti r e voir dire tran script” and the vo ir dire tran script was part of the evidence b eforeth e s t ate court, “th e co mparativean aly sis, which is ath eoryth at relies upon the vo ir dire—i s properly befo re this court onh abe as revi ew,” even if th e argu me nt wa s notma det o th e st atec ourt). 5 perem ptory c h al l en ges an d the t ri alcourt h as rul ed on t h e u l t i m ate qu est i on of i nt ent i onaldi sc r i m i nat i on, t he pr el i m i nary i ss ue o f w het her t he def

endant had
m ad e a pri m a faci e show i n g becom es m o ot
. ” )

. A ccor di n gl y, our f ocus i s on
w he t he rW ad e ha s s ho w n pu r po s e f uldi s c r i m i nat i o n. W ad e a r gue s t hata l t ho ugh t he St at e ’ s r e aso ns f o rs t r i ki ng t he Af

r i c anAm e r i c an ve ni r em e n a ppe arr ac e - ne ut r al , w he n t he c o ur tc o m pa r e s t he
r e s po ns e s o f

t he st r uc k A f

r i c an- Am e r i c an ve ni r e m e n w i t h t he r e s po ns e s o f t he C aucas i an j uro r s, t he St at e’ s r eas ons f or st r i ki ng t h e A fri c an- A m er i c an ve n i rem en a re u n p ersu a sive a n d n ot c red i b l e. H e a sk s th e cou rt t o con d u ct a 2
c o m pa r at i ve a nal ys i s o f t he s t r uc k v e ni r e m e n a nd t he Cauc as i an ve ni r e m e n. 3 T h e S u p rem e C ou rt arti cu l a ted a few gu i d i n g p ri n ci p l es for th e cou rt t o consi der w h en condu ct i ng a com pa rat i ve an al ysi s w h i ch w e expl ai n ed as f ol l ow s: F i rst, w e d o n ot n ee d to com p a re juro rs th a t exh i b i t a ll of t h e exact sa m e c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . . Se c o nd , i f t he St a t e a s s e r t s t ha ti tw as c o n c e r n e d a b o u t a p a r tic u la rch a r a c te r is tic b u t d id n o t e n g a g e in m e a n in g fu l v o ir d ir e e x a m in a t io n o n t h a t s u b je c t , t h e n th e S t a t e ’s Case: 08-30721 Document: 00511076098 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 30721

Wa de also argues that the State impermi ssiblystruck possib le alte rnate j urorVickie 4 Bre akenridge. This cl aim was no t exhau sted in state court because Wade fail ed to present th e cl aimto th e high es t Louis ian acourt
. SeeMe rcadel v . C ai n , 1 7 9F .3 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 5( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 9). Addition ally, Wadehas forfeited any errorfor failing to present th e cl aim to the district co urt. See United States v. Ch erry , 50F

. 3d3 38 , 3 42 ( 5t h Cir. 1 995). However, eve n if th e alle ge d errorwas exh auste d an d pre served, Wade’s argument i s witho ut merit. The State move d to exclu de Breakenridge fo r cause. Duringvoir dire, Bre akenridge indic ated that th e evi dence wo uld have tobe “outs tanding” fo r her tocons ide r the “e xtre me” pena lty of dea th. Although the trial j udge de nie d th e St ate’ s ch all enge for cause, he foun d that the que stionof wheth er Bre akenridge shoul d bestr uc kf orcause was “a close, close call” and that h e “c ertainly [th ou ght] ap er em pt ory ch allenge s houldb e is su ed , if th er e isanydoub t b yth e St ate
. . . . ” Giventh e j u dge’ s fin din g s, weca n n otho ldth e st atecourt’sdenial of Batson reli ef was base d onanu nre a so n ab led et er min ationo f th e fact s. See For bes , 81 6 F .2d at 1 010(holdin g that th e district co urt’s observationth at “a challe nge fo r cause might h ave b eenj us t if ie d” a s to this juror w as mor e th an suffici ent und er Batson , which empha size d th at “thepro secuto r’s expl a n ati o n n e e d n o t ri s e t o th e l eve l j u s tif yi n g e x e rc i s e o f a c h all e n ge f o r c au s e”(qu otin g Batson , 4 7 6U .S

. at 9 7))

. 6 fai l ur e t o q ue s t i o n t he j ur o ron t hatt o pi c i s s o m e e vi de nc e t hatt he assert ed reason w as a pretext f or di scr i m i n ati on . . . . T h i rd, w e m u st cons i de ro nl y t he St at e ’ s a s s e r t e d r e as o ns f o rs t r i ki ng t he b l ac k j u rors an d com pa re t h ose reasons w i t h i t s t reat m en t of t h e non bl ack ju r o r s . R e e d v

. Q uar t e r m an , 5 5 5 F .3 d 3 6 4 , 3 7 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) ( c i t i ng Mi l l e r - El , 54 5 U

. S. at 24 6, 24 7 n. 6, 25 2)

. W i t h t he s e pr i nc i pl e s i n m i nd,
w e c o m pa r e s t r uc k v e ni r e m e n M ar t i n, Bel l , Sm i t h Bel l , a nd Duke s w i t h t he no nA f ri can - A m eri can ven i rem en accept ed by t h e State. 4 A. R egard i n g ve n ire m an M art i n , t h e State assert ed at t h e Bat s o n he ar i ng t h at i tst ruck M art i n becau se he “ i n di cated by hi s m an n eri sm s and res pon ses th a t h e w a s u n w illin g to im p o s e th e d e a th p e n a lty ” a n d h e s e e m e d “q u ite w e a k ,”

“ t o pr ef era s ent enc e o f

l i fe i n pri so n, ” and uncom f or t abl e w i t h t he deat h penal t y. T h e ju d g e fo u n d th e S ta te ’ s re a s o n s to b e ra c e -n e u tr a l. W ad e w as i ndi c t e d f o rt he f i r s t

- de gr e e m ur de ro f C arl os W he e l e ro n t he th eo ry tha t W a d e k illed W h ee l er d u ri n g th e cou rse o f a rob b ery . T h e S tate
s o ugh tt he de at h pe nal t y and e xt e ns i ve l y que s t i o ne d t he ve ni r e pa ne l s a bo utt he Case: 08-30721 Document: 00511076098 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 30721

7 i s s ue . Veni r e m an M ar t i n, w he n q ue s t i o ne d, f i r s ti ndi c at e d t hathe di d no tt hi nk h e w o u ld v o te a g a in s t t h e d e a t h p e n a l ty
. W h e n th e ju d g e q u e s tio n e d h im furth er a b ou t his po sit i on , h e stated h e w a s a ga i n st th e im p ositi on of th e d ea th p en a l ty. H e later stated tha t he h a d n o stron g o p i n i on s ab ou t t h e d ea th pe n a l ty
an d that he coul d consi der t h e death p en al t y i f t h e evi den ce c al l ed f or i t
. L ater , i n ex p l a i n i n g h i s p ositi on h e st a ted th a t he cou l d u n d ersta n d the de a th pe n a l ty i n a si t u ati on w i t h Jef f rey D au m er and A dol f H itl e r “ [b] u tt h en i n an ot h er si t u ati on , I am not here as G od, an d I ’ m n ot h ere t o j u dg e an ybod y, I prefer not de at h t o l i fe i m pr i s o nm e nt
. ” M ar t i n’ s w af f l i ng j us t i f

i e d t he St at e ’ s c o ncl u si on t hathe w o ul d m ak e a w e ak j ur o ra nd t hathe s e e m e d un c o m f o r t ab l e w i t h g i vi ng t he dea t h penal t y. W ade a r gues t hat C l i f f or d E sc oval , a Cau c as i an j uro r , ex pre ss ed s i m i l ar he s i t at i o ns a bo utt he de at h pe nal t y. The r e c o r d fai l s t o s upp o r tt hi s po s i t i o n. Esc o va l ’ s r e s po ns e s t o t he vo i r di r e que s t i o ns c o ns i s t e nt l y de m o ns t r at e d t hathe
w as o pe n t o c o ns i de r i ng t he de at h pe nal t y. The s t at e c o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng o f

no d is c r im in a to r y in te n t in th e S ta te ’ s u s e o f a p e r e m p to r y s tr ik e to e x c lu d e M a r tin is n o t u n r e a s o n a b le in lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d

. B. A s t o ven i rem an C l aren ce B el l , t h e State assert e d severalreasons f or st ri king B el li n cl u di n g B el l ’ s fai l u re t o f i l lout th e ju ro r questi on n ai re, evas i venes s, and i nat t ent i on. The t r i alj udge f ou nd t he St at e’ s r eas ons t o b e
r a c e -n e u tr a l a n d s p e c ific a lly n o te d th a t B e ll w a s th e o n ly ju r o rw h o fa ile d to fill
o u t t h e q u e s tio n n a ir e . W ade di d noti dent i f y anot herj uro rt he St at e a l l ow ed t o s er ve t hat
e x h ib it e d c h a r a c t e r is t ic s s im il a rto B e ll . R a t h e r , W a d e a r g u e s th a tB e ll ’s

“ fai l u re t o f

i l lout t h e qu est i on n ai re c ou l d h ave si m pl y been an [ si c] conf u si on on h is p a r t a s to w h e th e rh e w a s re q u ir e d to c o m p l e te it p r io rto o rd u r in gv o ir di re. ” Th ere i s no evi den ce i n t h e rec ord t o sup port t h at posi t i on . B el l ’ s fai l u re Case: 08-30721 Document: 00511076098 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 30721

Wa de a sks the court tocons id ert he juror que stionnaires a s partof the recor d on 5 appeal. He ar gu es th at the que stionnaires would support his position that E scov al and othe rs did not gradu ate high schoo l. Neith er p arty has submitted the que stionnaires. Without the que stionnaires we are unableto ev alu ate wheth er the que stionnaires would support Wade ’s position. Moreover, it is que stion abl e wheth er this court coul d properly consi d erth e 8 to fill o u t th e q u e s tio n n a ir e , h o w e v e r , su p p o r ts th e S ta te ’ s co n c lu s io n th a t B e ll
s e e m e d e va s i ve . The r e c o r d a l s o s upport s the St at e ’ s po s i t i o n t hatBel lm i ght
no tha ve b e e n pa yi ng at t e nt i o n. A f t e rex t e ns i ve q ue s t i o ni ng ab o utw he t he rhe
an d h i s f

el l ow ven i rem en coul d i m po s e t h e death p en al t y, he qu est i on ed w h et h er t he j ury dec i des pu ni shm ent
. B as ed on t he rec or d bef or e us, w e cannotsay t hat t he s t at e c o ur tunr e as o nab l y f o und no r ac e di s c r i m i nat i o n a s t o t hi s v e ni r e m an.

C. Af t e rCl ar e nc e Bel l , t he St ate s t r uc k Sa ndr a Sm i t h Bel l , a n Af r i c anA m eri can w om an . Th e State al l eged t h at i tst ruck S an dra S m i t h B el lbecau se she had a ni nt h gr ade e ducat i on and i tw as co n cer ned t hat s he w oul d have di f f i cul t y u n derst an di n g t h e concepts i n vol ved w i t h D N A evi den ce. W ad e does notdi sput e t hat B el lonl y had a ni nt h gr ade educat i on. H e i nst ead a r gues t hat B el lm ett h e requi rem en t s t o be a j u ror, nothi n g i n a death p en al t y case r equ i res a j u ror t o un derst an d D N Aevi den ce, no j u ror w a s questi on ed ab ou tw h et h er t hey under st oo d s uch e vi denc e, and E sc oval , l i ke Bel l , had notgr aduat ed hi gh
s c h o o l. I n th is c a s e , D N Ae v id e n c e w a s c r u c ia l t o c o n n e c t in gW a d e to W h e e le r ’s
m u r d e r . Aju r o r ’ s a b ility to u n d e r s ta n d D N Ae v id e n c e w a s u n d o u b t e d ly i m portant t o t h e S t ate. A l t h ou gh the S t ate did n otex pl i ci t l y qu est i on t h e pan el
a b o u tth e ir a b il it y to u n d e r s t a n d s u c h e v id e n c e , w e c a n n o th o ld th a tth e S t a t e ’s
con cl u sion tha t som eo n e w i th a n in th gra d e ed u ca ti on w ou l d be l ess l i k ely to
u n d e r s ta n dD N Ae v id e n c e w a s m e r e ly a p r e t e x tfo rd is c r im in a t io n . A s to W a d e ’s
ar gum entt hat j uro rE sc ovalhad not gr aduat ed hi gh sc hool , hi s al l egat i on has
n o rec ord su p p ort. 5 Case: 08-30721 Document: 00511076098 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 30721

que stionnaires that were not presented as evidence befo re the Louisiana Secon d Circuit C ourt of App eal or th e Louis ian a Supr em e C ourt
. See M il le r- El , 5 4 5U .S

. at 2 4 1 n .2 ; Reed , 55 5 F .3d at 374n .6. Befo re the Louisiana Secon d C ir c ui tC ourtof Appe al, Wadesuppl ement ed th e recor d withth e voir dire tran scripts. He fail ed to utili ze that opportunityto supple ment the re co rdwithth e qu es tionn air es . 9 T h e State al so i n di cat ed that i tst ruck B el lbecau se s h e gen eral l y l ean ed t o w ar ds g i vi ng a de fe nda nta s e nt e nc e o f l i fe i m pr i s o nm e nta s o ppo s e d t o t he d e a th p e n a lty

. H e rv o ird ir e a n s w e r s s u p p o r t th is c o n c lu s io n . F o re x a m p le , B e ll
a n s w e r e d “Y e s ” in r e s p o n s e t o t h e q u e s tio n “ W o u ld it a ls o b e fa irt o s a y th a t if a person i n t en t i on al l y kil l ed an ot h er person t h at you w ou l d be m ore i n cl i n ed or l e an t o w ar ds g i vi ng t he m a l i fe se nt e nc e as opp o s e d t o a de at h s e nt e nc e ? ” W ad e do e s no tr e f

ut e t hi s ad di t i o nal r e as o n f o r s t r i ki ng Bel l

. The r e c o r d s upp o r t s t he t ri alco u rt ’ s f

i n di n g t h at t h e State di d n otst ri ke B el lf or a r aci al l y m ot i vated
reason. A ccor di n gl y, t h e deci si on t o den y W ad e’ s B ats on c hal l enge as t o Bel lw as
n o t b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n a b le d e te r m in a tio n o f th e fa c ts
. D. F i n al l y, a s t o D uke s , t he St at e a s s e r t e d t hati ts t r uc k Dukes b e c aus e he l e ane d t o w ar ds a l i fe s e nt e nc e i n c as e s w he r e t he vi c t i m f o ugh t ba c k. Ac c o r di ng to the S tate, “[ a ]ny j u ror w h o cou l d n ot i n tu i ti ve l y g ra sp the con cep t th a t a pe r s o n b e i ng r o bb e d a nd a t t e m pt i ng t o a rm t he m s e l ve s i n de fe ns e i s no tt he ag gr e s s o ri s i n m y vi e w unf i tf r o m t he St at e ’ s pr o s pe c t i ve [ s i c ] t o s e r ve o n a capi t al j u ry . ” The St at e a l s o s t at e d t hati tb e l i e ve d t hati f i ts t r uc k Dukes , S te p h a n ie L o s e y w o u ld b e c o m e th e tw e lfth ju r o r . J u r o rL o s e y co n s is te n tly st at ed t ha t sh e w as f ort he dea t h penal t y and c oul d c ons i deri t
. Veni r em an D uke s i ndi c at e d t hatt he o nl y w ay he c o ul d c o ns i de r t he de at h pe nal t y w as i f t he
m u r d e rw a s “p r e p la n n e d .” W ad e adm its th at “ D u kes’ voi r di re r espon ses m ay h ave tend ed to favor li fe im p r is o n m e n to v e rth e d e a t h p e n a lt y .” H e a r g u e s , h o w e v e r , t h a tth e S t a t e ’s
ex p la n a tio n tha t i t pre ferred L ose y, a C a u ca sian w om a n , to si t as th e tw elf th Case: 08-30721 Document: 00511076098 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 30721

10 j u ror dem on st rat es that the S t ate’ s reason f or s t ri king D u kes w as a pretextf or di s c r i m i nat i o n. The St at e ne ve rr e fe r r e d t o Los e y’ s r ac e w he n i te xp l ai ne d why i tpreferred her over D u kes. Th e State’ s desi re t o ha ve a j u ror th a tnev er
w a v e r e d o n th e d e a th p e n a lty q u e s t i o n o v e r o n e w h o h a d d o e s n o t c o m p e l a f i n di n g of

di scr i m i n ator y m ot i ve. T h e stat e cou rt ’ s f i n di n g of

no d i scr i m i n ator y in te n t in th e S ta te ’ s u s e o f th is p e r e m p to r y s tr ik e is n o t u n r e a s o n a b le

. III. W ad e h as fai l ed t o d em on st rat e t h at t h e st ate c ou rt ’ s den i alof hi s B ats on c l ai m w as b as e d o n a n unr eas o nab l e de t e r m i nat i o n o f t he fac t s i n l i ghto f

t he
e v id e n ce p re se n te d

. A cc o rd in g ly, W a d e is n o t en titled to h a b e a s r e li e f. AF F I RMED. Case: 08-30721 Document: 00511076098 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/09/2010