FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT Marc h 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11611

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 0 1 5 1 1 - C V - C L S - T MP J A C K T R A W I C K , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s R IC H A R D A L L E N , C om m i ss i on erof the A lab a m a D e p a r tm e n t o f C o rr e c tio n s , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M a r c h 18, 2008) B efo re E D M O N D S O N , C h i ef Ju d g e, B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Ja ck T ra w i ck appeal s f

rom the deni al of hi s habea s c orpu s pet i t i on fi l ed p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . T r a w ic k w a s c o n v ic te d o f c ap ita l m u r d e rin A l abam a i n 1 99 4 and se nt ence d t o d ea th. B oth the A l abam a C ou rtof C ri m i nalThis is the sole issue upon which a Cer tificate of Appealability

was grante d. 1 Trawick was c onvicted by a petit jury

on Marc h 23, 1994. The U.S. Supreme Court 2 issued J .E.B. on A

pril 14, 1994. 2 A p p e a ls a n d th e A lab a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t a f f ir m e d T r a w ic k ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d d e a th s e n t e n c e f

o rth e k i d n ap i n g a n d mu r d e ro f St e p h a n i e G a s h , a n d th e U . S. Su p r e me C our tde ni e d T r a w i c k’ s pe t i t i on f ora w r i tof

c e r t i or a r i . T r a w i c k v. S t a t e , 698 S o. 2d 15 1 (A l a. C ri m . A pp . 19 95 ); E x p art e T ra w i ck, 69 8 S o. 2d 16 2 (A l a. 19 97 ); T ra w i ck v. A l abam a, 52 2 U . S . 10 00 (199 7). H i s A l abam a R ul e 32 p et i t i on w as de ni e d, a nd tha tde ni a l w a s s um m a r i l y a f f i r m e d on appe a l . T r a w i c k v. S t a t e , 854 S o. 2d 12 15 (A l a. C ri m . A pp . 20 02 ); E x p art e T ra w i ck, 85 6 S o. 2d 96 3 (A l a. 20 02 ). T ra w i ck then fi l ed thi s f eder al habeas corpus pet i t i on , w hi ch the di stri ct c o u r t d e n ie d . T h is ap p e a l f o llo w e d . T he on l y i ss ue before us on appeal i s w hether T ra w i ck i s e nt i t l ed t o federa l habeas re l i ef

on hi s c l ai m thatthe S t at e of A l abam a e xerc i se d i t s per em pt ory s tr i ke s i n a di s c r i m i na t ory m a nne rby us i ng e l e ve n of i t s f our t e e n s tr i ke s t o r e m ove w om en fr om the veni re i n v i ol at i on of J. E . B . v. A l abam a, 51 1 U . S . 12 7 (19 94 ), w hi c h pr ohi bi t s ge nde rdi s c r i m i na t i on i n j ury s e l e c t i on. A l though T r a w i c k di d not 1 r a i s e a ny obj e c t i on t o ge nde r - bi a s e d s tr i ki ng dur i ng tr i a l , he di d a r gue tha tc l a i m on d i r e c tap p e a l t o th e A l ab a ma Su p r e me Co u r to n th e b a s i s o f J . E. B. , w h i c h th e U . S. Su p r e me Co u r td e c i d e d s e v e r a l w e e k s a f t e rTr a w i c k ’ s c o n v i c t i o n . Th e A l ab a ma 23

S up re m e C ou rthel d thatT ra w i ck fa i l ed t o est abl i sh a pri m a f ac i e c as e of gender d is c r im in a tio n . I. S tan d ard of R evi ew T hi s C our tr e vi e w s a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l e ga l f i ndi ngs de novo. H ous e l v. H e a d, 2 3 8 F . 3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . B e c a u s e th i s c a s e a r i s e s o n h ab e a s r e v i e w, the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y r e vi e w e d the s t a t e c our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on unde rthe hi ghl y de f

e r e nt i a l s t a nda r d of

the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 19 96 (“ A E D P A ”) . U nd erA E D P A , a f eder al courtm ay no tgranthabeas re l i ef u n le s s th e s ta te c o u r t’s d e c is io n “w a s c o n tr a ry to , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p l i c a t i o n o f

, c l e a r l y e s t ab l i s h e d Fe d e r a l l a w , a s d e t e r mi n e d b y th e Su p r e me C our tof the U ni t e d S t a t e s , ” or“ w a s ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e r m i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i g h to f

th e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n th e St a t e c o u r tp r o c e e d i n g . ” 2 8 U . S. C. § 2254( d) ( 1) –( 2) . T he s t a t e c our t ’ s f a c tua l de t e r m i na t i ons a r e “ pr e s um e d t o be c orr e c t ” a nd the pe t i t i one rha s the “ bur de n of r e butt i ng the pr e s um pt i on of corr ec tness by cl ea r a nd conv i nci ng evi dence. ” I d. § 2 25 4(e) (1). I I . D i s c u s s i on In J. E . B . , the U . S . S up re m e C ou rtext ended t he proh i bi t i on agai nstra ce b a s e d d i s c r i mi n a t i o n i n j u ry s e l e c t i o n a r t i c u l a t e d i n Ba t s o n v . K e n tu c k y , 4 7 6 U . S. 79 ( 1986) , t o pr ohi bi tge nde r - ba s e d di s c r i m i na t i on a s w e l l . I n doi ng s o, the4

S upr e m e C our the l d tha t“ ge nde r , l i ke r a c e , i s a n unc ons t i tut i ona l pr oxy f orj ur or com pet ence and i m part i al i ty. ” J . E . B . , 51 1 U . S . at12 9. A s w i th a cl ai m of ra ci al di s c r i m i na t i on, a pa r ty m a ki ng a J . E . B . c ha l l e nge be a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e of

ge nde rdi s c r i m i na t i on by s how i ng “ ‘ tha tthe t ot a l i ty of the r e l e va ntf

a c t s gi ve s r i s e t o a n i nf

e r e nc e of di s c r i m i na t ory purpos e . ’ ” J ohns on v. C a l i f orni a , 545 U . S . 162, 168 ( 2005) ( quot i ng B a t s on, 476 U . S . a t93- 94) ; s e e a l s o J. E . B . , 51 1 U . S . at14 4– 45 . O nce aparty e st abl i shes a pri m a f ac i e c as e of gender di sc ri m i nat i on , the bu rden shi ft s t o the prosec ut or t o o ff ergend er -neutra l e x p l a n a t i o n s w h i c h a r e n o tp r e t e x tu a l f o rth e c h a l l e n g e d s tr i k e s . J . E. B. , 5 1 1 U . S. at14 4– 45 . T he thi rd st ep i n the B at son/ J. E . B . fr am ew ork t hen requi re s the tri al j udge t o de c i de w he the rthe oppone ntof the s tr i ke ha s pr ove n purpos e f ul di s c r i m i na t i on. J ohns on, 545 U . S . a t168. T he A l aba m a S upr e m e C our tde t e r m i ne d tha tT r a w i c k ha d note s t abl i s he d a pri m a f ac i e c as e of gender di sc ri m i nat i on because the nu m ber a nd patt ern o f s tri kes di d nots uf

f i c e t o e s t abl i s h a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e . W e m us tr e vi e w tha tde c i s i on of the A l abam a S up re m e C ou rtt o d et erm i ne i f i tw as “ cont ra ry t o” or i nv ol ved “ an u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f ” e s tab lis h e d U .S . S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t. D uri ng T ra w i ck’ s j ury s el ec t i on , there w er e f orty- tw o j urors on t he veni re , of w hi ch ni net ee n, or forty- fi ve perce nt , w er e w om en. T he prosecut i on usedFour teen peremptory

strikes were exerc ised, as we ll as an additional strike of a n 3 alternate who wa s a white male . The State a

rgues, and thedistrict court agree d, that g iven the fact that the prose cutor 4 and thevic timin t

hisc a sewerewo men, therewa s n o c le ar m otivatio n todis c rimin ateag ains t wo men o n th ejur

y . A s th eSup remeCourt ha s p revious ly

do ne , w ere

je c t th is ratio nale altog ether . See J.E.B., 511 U.S. at 138–39 (re jectingg ender-base d stereoty pes re lated to the fac ts of the ca se as a

defense to g ender-base d discriminatory striking) . 5 el ev en o u to f i t s fo u rt een p erem p t o ry stri k es t o el i m i n at e w o m en fro m th e j u ry, i nc l udi ng the f

i r s ts e ve n. H ow e ve r , the f i na l j ury w a s c om pos e d of s e ve n m e n a nd 3 f i ve w om e n. D uri ng vo i r di re , T ra w i ck di d o bj ec tt o the prosecut i on ’ s use of pere m pt ory s tr i ke s , a l l e gi ng tha tthe y w e r e r a c i a l l y m ot i va t e d a nd thus vi ol a t e d B a t s on. T he tri al j ud ge re qu i re d the prosecut or t o art i cul at e r ac e- neut ra l re as on s f or stri ki ng the bl ac k m em bers of the veni re and, re j ec t i ng the prosecut i on ’ s a rt i cul at ed ra ce ne utr a l r e a s ons f

ors tr i ki ng thr e e bl a c k j ur or s , the c our tr e i ns t a t e d the m t o s e r ve on th e ju ry . T r a w ic k d id n o t, h o w e v e r , o b je c t o n th e b a s is o f

g e n d e rd is c r im in a tio n . O n appe a l , T r a w i c k a r gue s tha tboth the A l aba m a S upr e m e C our ta nd the di stri ctcourthere erre d i n rej ec t i ng hi s gender di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m , and t hat n e ith e rc o u r t g a v e a d e q u a te c o n s id e r a tio n to th e a r g u m e n ts h e m a d e in a d d itio n to the num be ra nd pa tt e rn of ge nde r - ba s e d s tr i ke s . H e c ont e nds tha tthe f ol l ow i ng 4 a ddi t i ona l f

a c t or s s uppor ta f

i ndi ng of a pr i m a f

a c i e c a s e : 1) the hi s t ory of d is c r im in a tio n in p e r e m p to ry s tr ik in g b y th e p r o s e c u to r ’s o f f ic e ; 2 ) th e d is p a r a teTrawick cites to a series of B atson ca ses to support his argument that the J eff erson 5 County prosecutor’s off

ice ha s historically

rac ially discriminated in the sele ction of juries. (Appe llant’s Br . at 12–13) (c iting Cochra n v. Her ring , 43 F.3d 1404 ( 11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Gordon, 817 F .2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987); ExparteBa nkhead, 625 So. 2d 1146 (A la. 1993); Smith v. State, 620 So. 2d 732 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992); Ex parte Will iams, 571 So. 2d 987 (Ala. 1990) ; McElemorev. State, 798 So. 2d 693 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000); Miesner v. State, 665 So. 2d 978 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995); Hodg e v. State, 665 So. 2d 959 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995); Richmond v. St ate, 590 So. 2d 384 (Ala . Crim. App. 1991)). 6 tre atm entof m en and w om en on the j ury; 3) the l ac k o f m ea ni ng ful vo i r di re c onduc t e d by the pr os e c ut i on; a nd 4) the f a c ttha tthe onl y c om m on f a c t ora m ong th e w o m e n s tru c k f

r o m th e ju ry w a s th e irg e n d e r . I n itia lly , w e a r e s a tis f

ie d th a t th e A lab a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t c o n s id e r e d h is ar gu m ent s r egar di ng these fa ct ors. T he court ’ s opi ni on spec i fi ca l l y a ckno w l edges h is a r g u m e n t th a t th e p r o s e c u to r ’s o f f ic e h a d a h is to ry o f

r a c ia l d is c r im in a tio n in ju ry s e le c tio n a n d a lth o u g h it d o e s n o t s p e c if ic a lly a d d r e s s e a c h o f

th e a r g u m e n ts a dva nc e d by T r a w i c k, w e c a nnota s s um e tha tthe c our tf a i l e d t o c ons i de ra l l of

the a r g u m e n ts T r a w ic k p r e s e n te d . A l though T r a w i c k m a y be c orr e c ttha tJ . E . B . r e c ogni z e d tha t“ ge nde ra nd r a c e a r e ove r l appi ng c a t e gor i e s , ” 511 U . S . a t145, a nd pa s tr a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on m a y b e c o n s id e r e d a s e v id e n c e th a t th e p r o s e c u to ris w illin g a n d ab le to di s c r i m i na t e i n j ury s e l e c t i on, w e c a nnots a y w i thouts om e e vi de nc e e vi nc i ng a re l at i on shi p t o g ender di sc ri m i nat i on i n thi s c as e thatthe A l abam a S up re m e C ou rt erre d i n rej ec t i ng thi s f

ac t or. 57

S i m i l ar l y, w e c anno tsa y thatthe tri al re cord “ prov i des c l ea r e vi dence that the S t a t e tr e a t e d m a l e a nd f e m a l e j ur or s w ho s ha r e d the s a m e c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s i n a dram at i ca l l y di ff

er entm anner. ” ( A pp el l ant ’ s B r. at14 . ) I n thi s c om pl i ca t ed c api t a l c a s e , j ur or s w e r e que s t i one d about , a m ong othe rthi ngs , the i rvi e w s on the death p enal ty, am enabi l i ty t o sequestra t i on , pers on al experi ence s w i th m ent al h e a lth p r o f

e s s io n a ls , a n d p r e v io u s in v o lv e m e n t w ith th e c r im in a l ju s tic e s y s te m . T he fa ctthattw o w om en stri cken from the veni re offe re d si m i l aransw er s t o m en w h o w e r e c h o s e n f

o rth e ju ry in r e s p o n s e to a s in g le q u e s tio n r e g a r d in g m e d ia e xpos ur e t o the c a s e i s a n i s ol a t e d e xa m pl e i n thi s r e c or d tha ts i m pl y doe s not am ou ntt o d i spar at e tre atm entof m en and w om en w i th “ the sa m e c hara ct er i st i cs . ” W i thoutm or e , w e c a nnotf i nd tha tthe A l aba m a S upr e m e C our te rr e d i n f i ndi ng th a t T r a w ic k f

a ile d to p r o v id e e v id e n c e th a t th e r e w a s g e n d e r - b a s e d d is p a r a te tr e a tm e n t o f

s im ila r ly - s itu a te d in d iv id u a ls . N orc a n w e s a y tha tthe A l aba m a S upr e m e C our te rr e d i n r e j e c t i ng the a r g u m e n t th a t th e r e w a s a la c k o f m e a n in g f

u l v o ird ir e o f

ju r o r s w h o m th e s ta te s truc k. I n B a t s on, the S upr e m e C our ti ns truc t e d tha t“ the pr os e c ut or ’ s que s t i ons and st at em ent s duri ng vo i r di re exam i nat i on and i n exerci si ng hi s c hal l enges m ay s u p p o r t o rr e f

u te a n in f

e r e n c e o f d is c r im in a to ry p u rp o s e .” B a ts o n , 4 7 6 U .S . a t 9 7 . H ow ever , “ the m er e f

ac tthat. . . coun se l deci ded t o exerci se pere m pt ory8

chal l enges a gai nstj urors w ho had n otbeen ext ensi vel y quest i on ed du ri ng vo i r di re doe s note s t abl i s h a di s c r i m i na t ory purpos e . ” C e nt . A l a . F a i rH ous . C tr . , I nc . v. L ow der R ea l ty C o. , Inc. , 23 6 F . 3d 62 9, 63 8 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. A l l i s on, 908 F . 2d 1531, 1538 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ) . H e r e , T r a w i c k of f e r s no ex p l an at i o n as t o h o w th e p ro secu t o r’ s co n d u cti s ev i d en ce o f g en d er b i as, p a r tic u la r ly b e c a u s e T r a w ic k d o e s n o t a lle g e th a t th e p r o s e c u to ro n ly f a ile d to qu es t i on m em bers of ei ther gender. T ra w i ck’ s c on t ent i on s a m ou ntt o con cl usory st at em ent s c hara ct er i zi ng the prosecut or’ s per form ance . T hu s, w e c anno tfi nd that the A l abam a S up re m e C ou rtun re as on abl y di sr egar ded T ra w i ck’ s a rgum entthat th e la c k o f

m e a n in g f

u l v o ird ir e w a s e v id e n c e o f g e n d e rd is c r im in a tio n . T ra w i ck al so ar gu es thatthe fe m al e j urors w ho w er e s tri cken from the veni re

“ had i n com m on on l y one chara ct er i st i c— thei r gender. ” ( A pp el l antB r. at16 . ) T h e A lab a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t e x p lic itly r e c o g n iz e d th a t a r e le v a n t f a c to rin de t e r m i ni ng w he the ra pr i m a f a c i e c a s e ha d be e n m a de w a s “ e vi de nc e tha tthe j urors i n q uest i on shar ed on l y the chara ct er i st i c of gender and w er e i n al l other r e s pe c t s a s he t e r oge nous a s the c om m uni ty a s a w hol e . ” E x pa r t e T r a w i c k, 698 S o. 2d at16 8. T o thatend, T ra w i ck l i st s s ever al fa ct ors w hi ch di st i ng ui sh the w om en stri ck en fro m th e j u ry fro m o n e an o th er— th ei r m ari t al st atu s, em p l o ym en tst atu s, a n d p a r e n ta l s ta tu s .9

W hi l e the c i t e d bi ogr aphi c a l f a c t or s i ndi c a t e tha tthe r e w a s di ve r s i ty a m ong the w om en stri cken from the veni re , there w er e s i gn i fi ca ntchar ac t er i st i cs shar ed by vari ou s s ub se t s of the w om en as w el l . F or exam pl e, fi ve of the w om en had be e n vi c t i m s of

vi ol e ntc r i m e s i n the pa s t . S e ve n of the w om e n ha d pr e vi ous experi ence s i n the cr i m i nal j ust i ce sy st em , ei ther a s w i tness es or m em bers of a ju ry . T h r e e o f

th e w o m e n h a d p a s t e x p e r ie n c e w ith m e n ta l h e a lth p r o f e s s io n a ls . A nothe rthr e e of

the w om e n e xpr e s s e d r e l uc t a nc e a tbe i ng s e que s t e r e d f orthe dur a t i on of

the w e e k. G i ve n the s e s ubs t a nt i a l s i m i l a r i t i e s a m ong s om e of the w om en stri cken from the j ury, w e c anno tsay thati tw as un re as on abl e t o d i sr egar d T r a w i c k’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe f e m a l e ve ni r e m e m be r s w e r e “ a s he t e r oge nous a s the com m un i ty a s aw ho l e. ” Fi n a l l y , i n l i g h to f

th i s r e c o r d , w e c a n n o ts a y th a tth e A l ab a ma Su p r e me C ou rterre d i n rej ec t i ng T ra w i ck’ s a rgum entthatthe nu m ber a nd patt ern o f s tri kes a g a in s t f e m a le ju r o r s in th is c a s e s u f f ic e d to e s tab lis h a p r im a f a c ie c a s e . W h ile B a ts o n s ta te s th a t “a ‘p a tte rn ’ o f s tr ik e s a g a in s t b la c k ju r o r s . . . m ig h t g iv e r is e to a n i nf e r e nc e of di s c r i m i na t i on, ” 476 U . S . a t97, the S upr e m e C our tdi d not e xpl i c i t l y de t e r m i ne w he the ra pa tt e rn of s tr i ke s a l one i s e nough t o pe r m i ta j udge to d r a w th e n e c e s s a ry in f e r e n c e . R a th e r , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t in s tru c te d ju d g e s to c ons i de r“ a l l r e l e va ntc i r c um s t a nc e s ” r e l a t i ng t o j ury s e l e c t i on i n de t e r m i ni ng10

w h e th e ra p r im a f

a c ie c a s e o f

d is c r im in a tio n e x is ts . B a ts o n , 4 7 6 U .S . a t 9 6 . I n thi s c a s e , the pr os e c ut i on us e d e l e ve n of i t s pe r e m pt ory s tr i ke s t o r e m ove appr oxi m a t e l y f

i f ty - e i ghtpe r c e ntof

the ni ne t e e n w om e n on the ve ni r e . T he o ri g i n al v en i re w as fo rty-fi v e p ercen tw o m en , an d th e fi n al seat ed j u ry w as fo rtytw o pe r c e ntw om e n. T he num be rof w om e n s truc k i s nots o di s pa r a t e f r om the n u m b ero f w o m en o n th e v en ire a s to re n d erth e A lab am a S u p re m e C o u rt’s det erm i nat i on cl ea rl y e rr on eous. M oreover, tho ug h i ti s nota di sposi t i ve fa ct or, thi s C ou rthas hel d “ thatthe un chal l enged p re se nce of j urors of apart i cul ar [ ge nde r ] on a j ury s ubs t a nt i a l l y w e a ke ns the ba s i s f ora pr i m a f

a c i e c a s e of di s c r i m i na t i on i n the pe r e m pt ory s tr i ki ng of j ur or s of tha t[ ge nde r ] . ” L ow de r , 236 F . 3d a t638. G i ven t he fa ct s of thi s c as e, w e c anno tfi nd thatthe A l abam a S up re m e C ou rt erre d i n con cl ud i ng thatT ra w i ck’ s r el i ance on the nu m ber a nd patt ern o f s tri kes a ga i ns tw om e n w a s , w i thoutm or e , i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e of gend erdi sc ri m i nat i on i n thi s c as e. W e have re vi ew ed the re cord and b as ed there up on ca nn otsa y thatthe A l abam a S up re m e C ou rt ’ s ul t i m at e c on cl usi on w as “c o n tr a ry to ” o rin v o lv e d a n “u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f ” f e d e r a l la w . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtop i ni on denyi ng T ra w i ck’ s pet i t i on for habeas re l i ef i s A FFI R M ED .