### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30338 EDW ARD E PR I CE P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. BUR L C AI N, W AR DE N, L OUI S IANA S TA TE P ENI TE NTIARY R espon den t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS 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 B ef ore JO L LY , D AV IS, an d D eM O S S , C i rcui tJu dg es . E . G R A D YJO L LY , C i rcui tJu dg e: E d w a r dP r ic e , a n A fr ic a n -A m e r ic a n , w a s t r ie da n dco n v ic te db ya n a llw hi t e j ur y o f

agg r av at e d r ap e and s e nt e nc e d t o l i fe i n pr i s o n. Af t e re xha us t i ng h is re m e d ie s ins ta te co u r t, P r ic e file dap e tit io n fo raw r it o f h a b e a s co r p u s in t he U ni t ed St at es D i st r i c tC our tf ort he W es t er n D i stri c tof Loui si ana. That peti t i on cl ai m ed that t h e st ate t ri alcourterr ed w h en itoverrul ed P ri ce’ s B ats on c hall e ngeo n t he gr o und t hatP r i c e di d no tm ak e apr i m a fac i e s ho w i ng t hatt he S t ate hadexerci sed i t s perem ptory c h al l en ges on the basi s of race. Th e di st ri ct c our tdeni ed Pri c e’ s c l ai m and di sm i ss ed Pric e’ s pet i t i on . P r i c e a ppeal s t hat d is m is s a l. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30338

2 T h ere i s no di spu t e t h at th e j u ry em pa n el ed i n P ri ce’ s case w as al l

- w h i t e. T h at j u ry w as sel ect ed f rom a 54-m em ber ven i re, of w h i ch 16 m em bers w ere A fri ca n -A m erican . T h e S tate u sed si x o f i ts t w elve p ere m p torych a l l en ge s to s t r ik e A fr ic a n -A m e r ic a n s , th r e e o f w h o m th e S ta te h a du n s u c c e s s fu lly c hall e nge d f

o rc aus e . Pri c e use d oneper e m pt o r y c hall e nget o str i ke an Af r i c anA m eri can . A f

t er the j u ry w as em pa n el ed, bu tbef ore th e pan elw as sw orn, P ri ce r ai se d a Bat s o n o bj e c t i o n: Pri c e: I t hi nk t hatw e w oul d i nt er pos e a tt hi s poi nta B ats on

c hall e ngeb e c aus e t he St at e , I t hi nk t hi s pa ne li s g o i ng t o be excl u sivel y w h i t e. C ou rt: . . . M a k e y ou r cas e. Is th a t it? Pri c e: Y eah, t hat ’ s i t . Im ean – C ou rt : – Y ou bett er m ak e itbett er th an t h at. . . . Y ou m ak e a

pri m a faci e case? P ri ce: R i gh t. C ou rt : S o, t h e factt h at th e pan el. . . you t h i n k y o u ’ ve st ated

en ou gh by j u stsayi n g t h ey’ re al lw h i t e? T h e tr ia l co u r t c o n c lu d e dth a t t h e m e r e s ta te m e n t t h a t t h e j u r yw a s a llw hi t e w as i nsuf

f i c i entt o m ake a pri m a fac i e s how i ng t o s upporta B ats on c h a lle n g e . L ou i sia n av. Pri ce , 917 So. 2d 1201, 1210 (La. C t . A pp. 2005) (recoun t i n g col l oqu y) . B ecau se t h e t ri alcourtrul ed that Pri ce fai l ed t o m ak e a pr i m a fac i e c as e , a nd thus fail e d B ats on ’ s f i r s ts t e p, i tdi d no tpr o c e e d t o t he seco n ds te p , w h i ch ask s th e S tate to a rti cu l a te rac e-n eu tral reas on s f or it s perem ptory c h al l en ges. Pri ce’ s app ealt h eref ore r equ i res u s t o deci de w h et h er ap r i m afa c i e c a s e i s mad e , a nd B ats on ’ s f i r s ts t e p i s s at i s f

i e d, w he n t he pro se c ut i on’ s u se of per em pt or y c hal l enges t o s t r i ke s i x Af r i c an- A m er i c an veni r em en r es ul t s i n an al l

- w hi t e j ury.N o. 08- 30338

3 U n d e rth e A n ti-T e r r o r is m a n dE ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t (A E D P A), th is c o ur tm ayno tg r antr e l i e f o n ac l ai m a dj udi c at e d b y a s t at e c o ur tunl e s s t he adj udi c at i on “r es ul t ed i n a dec i si on thatw as c ont r ar y t o, ori nvolved an unreas onabl e appl i c at i on of, cl ear l y est abl i she d F ede r all aw , as det er m i ned by t he Suprem e Courtof the U ni t ed Stat es ; or . . . res ul t ed i n a dec i si on t hatw as basedon an un reasona bl e deter m i n ati on of t h e fact s i n l i gh tof t h e evi den ce p rese n tedi n the S tate co u rt pro cee d i n g.” 28 U . S . C . § 22 5 4 (d)( 1 ) & (2). “Astate court’ s deci si on is d eem ed ‘ contrary t o’cl earl y est abli shed federall aw if itreli es on l egal rul es t h at di rect l y confli ctw i t h pri or hol di n gs of t h e Su prem e C ou rtor i f i tr e a c h e s ad iffe r e n t c o n c lu s io n th a n th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o n m a te r ia lly i n d i sti n gu i sh a b l e facts. ” Murphy v . D r e t ke , 416 F. 3d 427, 431- 32 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng B usbyv. D r e t ke , 359 F. 3d 708, 713 ( 5t h C i r . 2004) (c i t i ng Wi l l i am s v. T aylor , 529 U . S. 36 2 , 405- 06 ( 2000) ) . “As t at e c our t ’ s dec i si on c ons t i t ut es an u n r e a s o n a b l e a p p lic a tio n o f c le a r lye s ta b lis h e dfe d e r a l la w if it is o bje c tiv e ly u n rea son a b l e.” I

d. ( quot i ng Pond ext er v. D r e t ke , 346 F . 3d142 , 146 ( 5th C i r. 2003) (c i t i ng Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 4 0 9 )). U n derB at s on v. K e nt ucky , 476 U . S . 79 ( 1986) , c l ai m s of r ac i al d is c r im in a tio n inju r ys e le c tio n a r e a n a ly z e dinath r e e -s te p p r o c e s s . Id . 96- 98. Fi r st , a de fendantm u st m a ke a pri m a fac i e s how i ng t hatt he pr os ec ut i on has e x e r c is e dp e r e m p to r ych a lle n g e s o n th e b a s is o f r a c e . I d. at93-94 , 96- 97. S eco n d , if apr i m afa ci e sh ow i n g i s m a d e, th e b u rd en s h i ft s to th e p rose cu ti on to a r tic u la te ara c e -n e u tr a l re a s o n fo rth e p e r e m p to r ych a lle n g e a t is s u e . I d. at94, 97-98. Th i rd, t h e t ri alcourtm u stdeter m i n e w h et h er th e defen da n tha s proved p u r p o s e fu l d is c r im in a tio n . Id . a t 9 8 . T h is a p p e a l is co n c e r n e do n lyw ith s te p o n e , w h e th e rap r im afa c ie s h o w in gw a s m a d e . B ats on e x p l a i n e dth a t t o e s ta b lis h ap r im afa c ie ca s e , a de fe nda nt : ( 1) m us t s ho w t hat he i s a m e m be ro f ac o gni z ab l e r ac i alg r o up, a nd t h at th e prosecutorh as ex erci sed perem ptory cha l l en ges t o rem ove m em bers ofN o. 08- 30338

4 t h at gr ou p f

rom t h e ven i re; ( 2) i s entit l ed to re ly o n t h e fact“t h at perem ptory ch a l l en ge s con sti tu te a j ury se l ectionpr a cti ce th a t pe rm i ts ‘th ose to discri m i n a te w ho a r e o f

am i nd t o di s c r i m i nat e ’” ; a nd ( 3) m us ts ho w t hatt hese fac t s a nd circum sta n ces rai se an i n ference t h at th e prosecutorexerci sed perem ptory c h a lle n g e s o n th e b a s is o f r a c e . I d. at96 ( quot i ng A v eryv. G eo rg ia , 345 U . S. 559, 5 6 2 (19 5 3 )). The Supr e m e Cour tr e c e nt l y s t r e s s e d i n Jo h n so n v. Ca lif o rn ia , 5 45 U . S. 1 6 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ), tha t B ats on “ spo ke o f m et hods by w hi c h pri m a fac i e c as es c oul d be provedi n p e r mi s s i v et e r ms . ” I d. a t1 69 n. 5 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . W e r e adt he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s us e o f t he w o r d p e r m i s s i veto describe the m et h od byw h i ch pr i m a fac i e c as e s m ayb e pr o ve d t o m e an notre s t r i c t i ve . I n Joh n son , t he S u prem e C ou rthel d that C al i f orni a courts coul d not requ i re a defenda n tt o show a t s te p o n e th a t “ it is m o r e lik e lyth a n n o t” th a t p e r e m p to r ych a lle n g e s , if u n e x p la in e d , w e r e b a s e do n im p e r m is s ib le g r o u p b ia s . I d. at1 71 - 72 . The Supr e m e Cour te xp l ai ne d:

W e d i dn ot i n ten d th e f i rst step to b e so on ero u s th a t a de fe nda ntw o ul d ha veto p ersua de t he j udg e –o n t he basi s of al lt h e fact s, som e of w h i ch are i m possibl e f or t he de fe n dantt o kno w w i t h c e r t ai nt y – t hatt he cha l l en ge w as m ore li kely th an not t h e produ ctof pur po s e f

uldi s c r i m i nat i o n. I ns t e ad , ade fe nda nt s a t is fies th e re q u ire m e n ts o f B ats on ’ s f i r s t s t e p by pro duci ng evi denc e s uf fi ci en tt o pe r m i tthe t r i alj udge t o dr aw an i nfe r e nc e t hatdi s c r i m i nat i o n ha s o c c ur r e d. I d. at170. In o th e rw o r d s , Bat s o n i nt e nde d f o rapr i m a fac i e c as e t o b e s i m pl e a nd w i th ou t f

ri l l s. T h e op i n i o n w a s “d esign edto pro d u ce a ctu a lan sw ers to su sp i ci on s an di n feren ces.” Id . a t 17 2 . A ctu a l a n s w ers a re p refera b l e to

“ needl ess a n d im p er fec ts pec ul at i on w hen a dir ec tansw erc an be obt ai ned by a sk i n g as i m p l e q u estion . ” I d. (c ita tio n s o m itt e d). B ats on th u s see k s to p rom oteN o. 08- 30338

5 “ ‘ pro m ptr ul i ngs on o bj ec t i ons t o pe r em pt or y c hal l enges w i t houts ubst ant i al d i sru p ti on of th e j u ry selecti on pr oce ss. ’” I d. ( quot i ng Hernan d ez v. New Y ork , 5 0 0 U .S . 3 5 2 , 3 5 8 -5 9 (1 9 9 1 )). To m ak e apr i m a fac i e c as e , Pr i c e ne e de d t o s ho w o nl y t hatt he fac t s a nd circum st an ces of

hi s c ase gave ri se t o an i n ference t h at th e State exerci sed perem ptory c h al l en ges on the basi s of race. Th i s w as a l i gh tbu rden , an d P ri ce carri ed i t . Pri ce, an A f ri can - A m eri can m an , w as tri ed f or th e rape of

a C h i n eseA m erican w om a n . T h e S ta te u sed si x o f i ts t w elve p ere m p torych a l l en ge s to st rike A f

ri can - A m eri can s f

rom the ven i re, an d the resul t i n g j u ry w as al l

- w h i t e. U n der B ats on ’ s “ perm i ssive t erm s, ” t h ese fact s and circum st an ces w ere “ suf f i c i entt o pe r m i tt he t r i alj udge t o draw an i nfer enc e t hatdi sc r i m i nat i on has occu rred . ” Joh n son , 545 U . S. at170. In t h e l i gh tof

t h e f oregoi n g, w e rem an d thi s c ase to the d i st ri ctcourtf or a hear i ng t o de t er m i ne w het hera B ats on vi ol ati on occ u rred. I f the d i st ri ctcourt d e te rm in e s th a t t h e ju ryth a t c o n v icte dP rice w a s se lec te din v iola tion of B ats on , i tw i l lg r antha be as r e l i ef, or de r i ng t he s t at e t o e i t he rr e t r y Pr i c e w i t hi n a r e as o nab l e t i m e o rt o re l e as e hi m ; ot he r w i s e i tw i l lde ny r e l i e f a nd d i s m i s s t he peti t i on . Th e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourti s t h eref ore RE VE RS ED , VAC AT E D ,an dR E MAN D ED .