## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3262 A LL EN J. B ENNETT, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. D ONAL D G AETZ, W ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C1975

— George W. Lindberg, Judge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 28, 2009

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 21, 2010

Befo re R IPPLE, W I L L I A MS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T I NDER, C i rcui t Judge. A n I l l i noi s j ury convi cted All en Bennett forposs ess i on o fa sto l en ve hi cl e. In th i s habe as co r pus pe ti ti o n un der2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4, Benne tt, a n Af r i ca nA m erican, rai ses a claim un d er Bats on v. Ke nt uc ky, 47 6 U. S
. 7 9 ( 19 86), of r ac i aldi sc r i m i na ti o n dur i ngthe sel ecti on o fthatj ury. A t t h e b eg in n in g of ju ry se lec tio n for B en n et t’s tri al, the j ury v en i re co nsi ste d oftwo f ourt een- perso n panel s,2 N o. 08

- 3262 wh i c h t o g e th e rh a d fi v e A fr i c a n - Am e r i c a n s . Wh e n e x a mining th e fi rst p an el, th e p rosecu tion us ed tw o pe rem p tory chal l enges to exc lude tw o A fri can- A m er i cans. Bennett, w ho repre sente d him sel fattr i al, used per em ptor i es agains t six m em bers of th is fi rst p an el, includ in g a third Afr i ca n- Am er i ca n. W he n e xa m i ni ngthe se co nd pan el, the pros ecuti on use d tw o ofi ts re m aini ng fi ve perem ptor i es to exclu d e tw o w hi te j uror s. The tr i alco urt then dism i sse d a f ourth A fri can- A m erica n f orcause bas ed on hi s cr i m i nalhi sto ry . That l eft o ne o fthe or i gi nalfi ve A fr i ca n- Am er i ca ns o n the v en i r e as a pr o spe ct i ve j ur o r. This i nd i vi du aldid n ot s er ve on Bennett’ s j ury but was sea ted as an a l ternate. A t t h e en d o fj ury sel ecti on, Bennett ra i sed a Bats on chal l enge base d on the pros ecuti on’ s use o fp er em ptor i es ag ains t Afr i ca n- Am er i ca ns . The t r i al c ou r t r ej ec te d the c h a l l e n g e , fi n d i n gth a tB e n n e t tf a i l e d t o ma k e o u ta p r i ma facie case o f racial d iscrim ination u nd er Bats on . Because Bennett f ai l ed to es tab lish h i s pri m a f aci e ca se, the tr i al cou rt did not p roceed to the n ex t step un d er Ba t s on to re quir e the pro secuti on t o offerr ace- neutra lr eas ons f or i ts perem ptor i es. Th e j ur y c o nv i c t e d B e nn e t to fa g g r a v a t e d p o s s e s s i o n of a s tol en m oto r vehi cl e an d p oss ess i on o fa sto l en m oto r vehi cl e, and Bennett was se ntenced to fi fte en y ear s o f i m pr i so nm en t. Be nne tta ppealed hi s co nv i ct i o n t o the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Court, w h ich al so rej ecte d his Bats on cl ai m . In i ts or der a ffi rm i ng the convi cti on, the cour t ci ted the Bats on sta nd ar d and then appli ed the seve n-f acto r tes t e s t ab l i s h e d b y th e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me C o u r ti n P e opl ev.N o. 08

- 3262 3 Wi l l i a ms , 6 7 0 N. E. 2 d 6 3 8 ( I l l

. 1 9 9 6 ) , t o de t e r mi ne wh e ther B en ne tt ha d m ad e out a p rim a facie case un d er Bats on . The cour t a cknowle dg ed that the pros ecuti on use d tw o ofi ts f our pere m ptor i es, o r 50% , to excl ud e Afr i can- A m er i cans, whi chs uppo r ted a pri m a f ac i e ca se o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n. A ga i ns tthi s f a c t o r, h o we v e r, the c o ur twe i ghed seve ra lci rcum sta nces th at n ega ted an infe re nce o fr aci al disc ri m i nati on. One A fri can- A m er i can was excused by Benne tta nd a no th erwas e xc us ed f o rc au se, l o wer i ng th e t ot al n u m b er of A fric an -A m er ica n s a va ilab le t o s it on th e jur y t o on ly th re e. T h e p ro se c u tio nals o u se d on ly f our ofi ts seve n a vail abl e per em ptor i es, r atherthan ex h au st in g its p er em p to rie s to e x c lu d e a ll A fric an -A m er icans o n the veni re . The fi nal, r eta i ned A fri can- A m er i can served as an altern ate j uror. The I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courtal so not ed thatnone of the pr ose cuti on’ s quest i ons du ring vo i r dir e s ugges ted r a c i a la n i mu s . F i n a l l y , th e c o u r tr e a s o n e d th a tth e t wo A fri can - A m er i cans e xcl ud ed by the pr ose cuti on s hare d a co m m on char acte ri sti c o therthan th eir r ace; unl i ke th e j urors ac cep ted by the prose cu tion, th ese j urors w er e cr i m e v i cti m s. T h e I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t deni ed Bennett’ s peti ti on for lea ve to ap p ea l, a n d t h e Illino is c ou rt s d en ied h is pe t i t i o n f o rp o s t
- c o nv i c t i o n r e l i e f

. Be nn e t tthe n f i l ed a pro se peti ti on fora w ri t o fhabea s co rpus under 2 8 U
. S. C. § 2 254 i n federa l d i str i ct c ourt
. In additi on t o hi s Bats on cl ai m , Be nne tt ’ s pet i ti o n a ss er te d tha t the ad m iss ion of “o th e r c rim es ” e vid en c e d en ied h im a fair tr i al ; thatthe sta te tr i alj ud ge’ s a pp oi ntm ent o ftr i al4 N o. 08

- 3262

co uns elv i o l at ed Benne tt ’ s r i g htt o c o uns el ; a nd tha t th e i nd i ctm ent w as du pli ci tous and v oi d. On J une 23 , 2 008, th e di st r i ctc o urt de ni ed Benne tt ’ s habe as pe ti ti o n, c o ncl ud i ng tha t the I l l i noi s Ap pe l l ate Courtdi d not unre asonab l y a pp l y Bats on . The co urt al so concl ud ed that Bennet t’s ev i denti ar y c l ai m was not cogni zabl e in federa l h ab ea s p ro c ee d in gs a n d th at B en n et t h ad p ro c ed u ra lly defa ult ed hi s r i ght t o counseland i nd i ctm ent c l ai m s. O n July 3, 2008 , the Stat e fi led a “m otion to recon side r” und erF e d. R
. Ci v . P
. 5 9 ( e ) , i n whi c h the S t a t e a rg ued th atthe di st r i ctco ur t e r r ed i n ho l di ngtha t Benne tt ’ s r i g ht to co u n se l an d ind ict m en t c laim s w er e p ro c ed u ra lly defa ult ed. The m otion r equeste d that the S tat e be a l l o we d t o r e s po nd t o tho s e c l a i ms on the me r i t s . On J ul y 9 , the c o ur t den i ed th e S ta te ’ s m o ti o n o n the grou nd that i t d id “n ot obj ect to th e resu lt ofthe cou rt’s J u n e 2 3 , 200 8 o rd er d en yin g B en n et t’s m ot ion for a w rit o f h ab ea s co r pus , ” butr athe r“ i m pr o per l y [ to o k ] i ss ue w ith th e re as on in g u n d er lyin g t h e c ou rt ’s d ec isio n .” O n July 21, B en ne tt fi led h is ow n m otion f o r t h e cou rt to re consid er i ts proce du ra ldef aul t a nal ysi s o r, al ternati ve l y, g r an t hi m l ea ve t o fi l e a no ti ce o fa ppea l

. The cour t deni ed Bennett’ s m oti on o n J uly24 and dec lined to i ssue a ce rt i fi cate of appeal abi l i ty ( “CO A ”)
. Bennett f ol l owed up on Au gust 4 with a “ m oti on t o fi l e l ate no t i c e o fa pp e a l, ” a nd thi s c o ur ts ub s e qu e nt l y i s s ue d a C O A o n Bennett’ s Bats on c l a i m. T he CO A a l s o di r e cted the par ti es to add re ss w hetherBennett’ s app ealwas ti m ely, and speci fi cal l y, wh etherBennett com pli ed w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P
. 4(a )(1) (A ) b y fi lin g a n ot ice of ap p ea l w ith in th irty d ays of the d istri ct cou rt’s order.N o. 08

- 3262 5 W e be gin our a nal ysi s with the i ssue ofwh ether Bennett’ s a pp ealwas ti m el y, a thre shol d quest i on that goe s to o ura ppel l at e j ur isdicti o n. UnderF ed. R. App. P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) , an appell ant i n a ci vi l case m ust fi l e hi s no ti ce ofappeal “ w ithin 30 days afterthe j ud gm ent o r or der appeal ed fro m i s e nter ed. ” Here, the dist ri ct c ourtente re d i ts or der denying Bennett’ s habe as p etit i on o n J une 23, 2008 , but Bennett di dn ’t file hi s “ m oti on t o fi l e l ate not i ce ofappeal ” unti lA ugust 4 o ftha t ye ar . S o i n or der t o es tabl i shtha t hi s appe ali s ti m ely, Be nne ttmusti dentify som e e ar l i erfi l i ng tha t served as a suffi ci ent no ti ce o f ap p ea l. For tunately, Bennett’ s J uly21 m oti on, ti tl ed “M oti on t o Reconsi der o r i n the A l ternati ve M oti on forLeave to File N ot ice of A p p ea l an d R eq u es t fo r L ea ve t o A p p ea l in Form a P auperis , ” qua l i fi ed as a t i m ely no ti ce o fa ppea l

. The fi nal page o fthi s m oti on co ntai ned a se parat el y c apti oned “Not i ce o fAppea l, ” i n whi chBe nne ttr eque st ed th e Se ve nth Cir cui t t o re vi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f hi s habe as peti ti on. T hi s r equest sat i sfi ed the re quir em ents ofa val i d noti ce ofap peal, w hi ch are (1 ) i denti fi cati o n o f th e p a r t y t a k i n g th e a p p e a l ; ( 2 ) d e s i g n a t i o n o ft he j ud gm ent o r or d er being appeal ed; and ( 3) i denti fi cati on oft h e c ou rtto w h ich th e a p p ea l is ta ke n . S mi t h v . G ra ms , 56 5 F
. 3d 10 37, 1 04 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2009) ( ci tingF ed. R. App. P. 3( c) ( 1) )
. The part i es agr ee, as d o w e, that B ennett’ s Jul y 2 1 m oti on was val i d und erthes e c rit eri a, es peci al l y s i nce thi s c ourtco nstr ues a pro se l i ti gant’ s fi l i ngs l iber al l y. Se ei d. a t1 0 4 1

- 4 2 ( con stru ing a pro se h abea s p etitioner’s let te r as a tim ely n ot ice ofa p p e a l ev en th ou gh it i nc o r r ec tly na m ed th e S upr eme Co ur t, r athe rtha n the Seven th Circu it, as the review ing cou rt).6 N o. 08

- 3262 T he pa rties argue in th e a lternative th at th e State’s J uly3 m oti on t o re consi der t ol l ed Bennett’ s thi rty- day w ind ow to app e a l u n tilJ uly 9, w he n th e d istri ct cou rt denie d the m oti on. U nd erthi s theo ry, Bennett’ s Au gust 4 “m oti on t o fi l e l ate not i ce o fappeal ” was within thi rty d a y s o f th e d istri ct cou rt’s J uly 9 j ud gm en t and therefore ti m ely . W e ne ed no t a ddr es s thi s a r g um en t i n l i g hto fo ur c o nc l us i o n tha tBe nn e t t ’ s e a r l i e rJ ul y 2 1 mo t i o n, whi ch w as unqu est i onabl y t i m el y, se rv ed as a s uffi ci ent no ti ce of a p p ea l. T u r n i n g t o th e me r i t s o f B e n n e t t ’ s h ab e a s p e t i t i o n, o ur review is con strained by th e high ly d eferential sta nd ard presc ribed by the Antit er ro ri sm and Effectiv e Death Penal ty A ct, 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254( d)( 1) , f or e va lu ating st ate
co ur t dec i si o ns. W e m ayg r an t habe as r el i efo nl y i fthe I l l i noi s co urts ’ adj ud i cati on o fBennett’ s cl aim “was con trary to, or i nv olv e d a n u nrea son able ap p li cation of, cl ea r l y e st ab l i sh ed F ede r all aw, a s det erm i ne d b y the Sup re m e Cour t o fthe U ni ted S tat es. ” Id. A state cou rt’s de c isio n i s “ unreas onabl e” w i thi n the m eani ng o f § 2 254( d)( 1) o nl y i fi t i s “ so er ron eo us as to be obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e” and “w ell outsi de the boundari es ofper m i ssibl e d i ffer ences ofo pini on. ” Em e rs on v. Sh aw , 575 F. 3d 680, 684 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( quotati ons om i tte d). H er e, w e m us t d ecid e w he th er the Il linois A p p ell ate C ou rt un r e a s o nab l y a pp l i e d S up r e me Co ur tp r e c e de nti n up hol di ngthe t r i a lc o ur t ’ s de t e r mi na t i o n tha tBe nn e tt f ai l ed to es tabli sh a pri m a f aci e ca se ofr aci aldi scr i m i nation un d e r Bats on . S e eF ra n k l i n v . S i ms , 53 8 F
. 3d 661, 66 4 (7th C ir. 2008).N o. 08

- 3262 7 I n B a tson , the S up re m e Cou rt establ i shed a three

- ste p fra m ew or k fordeterm in i ng wh etherthe pros ecuti on viol ated the d efen d a nt ’s Eq ua l Prote ction rights b y exe rcising pe rem p tory ch all en ges in a rac ial ly d iscrim inatory m an n er . First, th e d efe n d an t m u st m ak e ou t a p rim a fa c ie case “bysh ow i ng tha t the to tal i ty ofthe re l evantf acts giv es ris e to an in fer en c e of d isc rim in at or y p u rp os e.” Bats on , 47 6 U.S
. at94
. Second, ifthe defendant est abl i shes a pri m a f aci e ca se, the “burden shifts to the St ate to ex pl ain ade qua te l y th e r ac i al ex cl us i o n” byoffer i ng perm i ssibl e, r ace- neutra lr eas ons f orthe perem ptor i es. Id. T h ird , th e tria l c ou rt m u st ev alu at e th e p l a u sibi l i tyo fthe pr o se cut i o n’s r ea so ns , i n l i g hto fa l lo fthe su r r o und ing ci r cumst an ce s, t o de ci de whethe rthe de fen d an t h as p ro ve d p u rp os efu l d isc rim i n a t i o n . Id. at98 ; s e eal s o M i l l e r - El v
. D re t ke, 545 U
. S. 231, 251-52 (2005 ). The f ocus ofthi s ca se i s Bats on ’ s fi rs t s tep, r equi ring us to exam i ne wh etherBennett pu t for th eno ugh ev id ence to es tabl i sha pr i m a f ac i e ca se o fracial di sc r i m i na ti o n. T h e bur den at thi s s tag e i s l i ght, and a defendant m ay est abl i sh a pri m a f aci e ca se b y offer i ng a w i de var i etyo f evid en ce th at raises a m ere inference of a d iscrim inatory pu rpos e. Johnson v. C alif ornia , 54 5 U .S. 16 2, 16 9 (2 00 5); see al s o Unit e d S t at e s v. St ephe ns , 4 21 F.3d 50 3, 512 (7th Cir. 2005 ) (“[T]he bu rd en at the p rim a facie stage i s low

. . . . ”). St i l l, tho ugh l i ght, the pri m a f aci e bur den i s a n ess en ti al part of t he Bats on fram ew or k, an d tria l co u rt s m ay j u st ifiably d em an d that de fend an ts carry th is b u rd en before re quir i ng pro secutors to e ngage i n the diffi cul t t asko f ar tic u lat in g th eir in st in c tiv e rea so n s for p e r em p to rily st rik in g a j u ro r. Cf

. Mi l l e r - El, 54 5 U .S. at 26 7-6 8 (B re ye r, J., con cu rri ng ).8 N o. 08

- 3262 W e d o not believe tha t th e Il linois A p p ell ate C ou rt u n reaso nabl y dete rm i ned that Bennett f ai l ed to m ake out hi s pri m a fac i e ca se. The o nl y r ealev i dence ofdi scri m i nati on that Bennetto ffer s i s that the pro secuti on us ed two o f i ts f o ur per empto r i es , o r 50 % , ag ains t Afr i ca nAm er i ca ns , who c o m pr i sed ju stfi ve o fthe t wenty - ei g ht ve n ire m em b er s, or 1 8% . B u t it is d ifficu lt t o d ra w sign ific an c e fro m th is d isp ar ity , g i ve n th e re lat ive ly sm all number s o fA fr i ca n- Am er i ca n pr o spe ct i ve j ur o r s an d p er em p to ry ch alle n ge s in th is c as e. C f. id. at 240- 41 ( chara cter i zi ng the pro secuti on’ s use o fper em p to ries t o str i ke ten of eleven A fri can -A m ericans as “ rem arkab le”); Johns on , 545 U .S
. a t 1 64 , 173 (find in g a p rim a fa c ie sh o wi ngwh e r e the p r o s e c ut i o n e xc l ud e d a l lthr ee elig ible A fric an -A m er ica n s); Bats on , 4 7 6 U. S
. a t8 3 ( des c r ib i ngthe p r o s e c ut i o n’ s u s e o fp e r e mpt o r i e s t o e xc l ud e al l f o ur el i g i bl e Af r i ca n- Am er i c a n s )
. F u r th e r, the t r e a t men t o f the thr e e Af r i c a n- Am e r i c a ns who we r e no t excl ud ed by the pr os ec u tio n und er cuts a n i nfe re nce o f r ac i aldi sc r i m i na ti o n. Be nne ttpe r empto r i l y s trucko ne ofthese p rospecti ve j uror s, the parti es agr eed to r em ove th e s econ d for c au se, an d the th ird sat as an alternate j uror. The I ll i no i s Appel l at e Cou r t al so a ppr o pr i at ely c o nsi dered the f act that the pr ose cuti on di d not ex haust i ts se ven ava i l ab l e per empto r i es t o e xc l ude a l lAf r i ca nA m er i can pro spective j uror s; r ather, i t use d onl y four of th o se pe r empto r i es , t wo a g ains t Afr i ca n- A m eri ca ns a nd t w o a g ain st w h ite s. See Fra nk lin, 5 3 8 F
. 3 d a t6 66 ( appr o vi ngthe I l l i no i s Appel l at e Cou r t’ s r el i an ce o n the pros ecuti on’ s use o ftwo of sev en per em ptor i es to str i ke only tw o of four A fri can -A m ericans ). And fi nall y, as theN o. 08

- 3262 9 st at e c ou rtob se rv ed , th e p ro se c u ti on d id n otas k s u sp ici ous ques ti ons to the tw o excl ud ed A fri can- A m erican j uror s that w oul d supp or t an i nfe re nce o fr aci aldi scr i m i natio n . Cf
. Mi l l e r - El, 54 5 U.S
. at255- 63 ( describi ng the pro secut i o n’ s po singo fque st i o ns t o Af r i ca n- Am er i ca n v enir e m em b er s d es ign ed to elic it d isq u alify in g a n sw er s). In the absence o fm or e e vi dence ofdi scr i m i natory purpose , w e ca nnot s ay that the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courtunrea sonab l y c oncl ud ed that Bennett f ai l ed to m ake o ut a p rim a facie case un d er Bats on. Of c ours e, i t would not h ave been unreas onabl e for th e st at e court to r ea chthe o ppo si te c o nc l us i o n. The pros ecuti on d id u se a di spro port i onate per centag e o fi ts per empto r i es a g ains t Af r i ca n- Am er i ca ns , and no Af r i ca nA m er i can ult i m ate l y ser ved on Ben n et t’s tw elvep er so n j u ry . I t is als o a lit t le t ro u b lin g t h at th e Illino is Appel l at e Cou r t se emingl y a tt empte d t o fi nd a c o m m o n, no n- r ac i al trait am ong the ex clud ed A fr i ca nA m erica n ju rors that m ight j us tify the prose cu tion’s perem ptor i es

— n a me l y, th a tth e s e j u r o r s w e r e c r i me vi ct i m s. In Johns on , the Suprem e Cour t a dm oni shed that cour t s s ho ul d n o ti mag i ne p l a us ib l e r e a s o ns f or pe re m p to ri es at the pr i m a f aci e s tag e, “when a dir ect an sw er can be obtaine d by asking [the p r o secu tor] a s i mpl e qu est i o n” a tthe s e c o nd Bats on st ag e. Johns on , 54 5 U. S
. a t 1 72
. A s we c au ti o ne d i n Franklin , th e Illino is A p p ell ate Court ’ s r el i ance o n com m on j urorchar acte risti cs that coul d explain the pros ecuti on’ s perem ptor i es “r i ske d co l l aps i nga l lthr ee of B a tson’ s s te p s in to th e p rim a fa c ie i nquir y. ” Franklin , 53 8 F
. 3d at 666.10 N o. 08

- 3262 Als o t r o ubl i ngi s th at, unde rthe f ac ts o fth is ca se , the j u ro rs ’ e x p e rie n c e w ith cr im e s ee m s a n im p lau sib le r ea so n fo rthe pe r empto r i es . Al th o ugh the t wo Af r i ca nA m er i cans s tr uck bythe pros ecuti on t est i fi ed that they ha d b ee n crim e v i ct i m s, s o t o o di d a t l ea stf o urno nA fri can- A m er i cans who ul ti m ate l y ser ved as j uror s. Based o n thi s si de-by

- side c o m par i so n b etwee n e xc l ude d a nd non- excl ud ed j uror s, the pros ecuti on would h ave been hard- press ed to cr edibl y a sse rt t h e j uror s’ exper i ence w ith crim e as a race-ne ut ral reason h ad the trial cou rt proce eded to Bats on ’s s e c on d st ag e. S e eMi l l e r - El, 54 5 U
. S. at24 1. I m port antl y, tho ugh, the pros ecuti on nev ertried to u s e th e A fr i c a n - Am e r i c a n s j u r o r s ’ e x p e r i e n c e w i th c r i me as a basis for ex clud ing the m , and the trial cou rt did n’t re l y o n this j urortr ai t in concl ud i ng tha t Bennettf ai l ed to m a k e ou t his prim a facie case un d er Bats on . So as in Franklin , w e m ay d iscoun t th e I ll inois A p p ell a t e Cou rt’s er r o ne o us r el i an ce o n thi s tr ai t as a s m al l p art o fthe c ou rt ’s o v e r a l l an aly sis
. Franklin , 53 8 F
. 3d at 666. Because that anal ysis p ri m ar i l y r el i ed on s eve ra lappropr i ate f a c t o r s w e i g h i n ga g a i n s ta n i n fe r e n c e o fr a c i a ld i s c r i mi nati on, we cannot saythatthe sta te cour t’ s a pp l i cati on of Bats on was “ unr ea so nable” wi th i n the mean i ng of 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254( d)( 1)
. Fo r that re aso n, we A FF I RM the di str i ct c ou rt ’ s j ud gm ent denying Bennett’ s habe as pet i ti o n.

1- 21- 10