Document: Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTI- TUTIONS DIVISION v. ANTHONY CARDELL HAYNES ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 09–273. Decided February 22, 2010 PER CURIAM. This case presents the question whether any decision of this Court “clearly establishes” that a judge, in ruling on an objection to peremptory challenge under Batson Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), must reject demeanor based explanation for unless judge per sonally observed and recalls aspect prospective juror’s which is based. The Appeals appears have concluded either itself or Snyder Louisiana, 552 472 (2008), clearly established such rule, but read far too much into those decisions, its holding, if allowed stand, would important implications. We therefore grant petition certiorari, respon dent’s motion proceed forma pauperis, reverse judgment Appeals. I Respondent was tried Texas state court murder police officer, State sought death penalty. During voir dire, two judges presided at different stages. Judge Harper when attorneys ques tioned jurors individually, Wallace took over challenges were exer cised. When prosecutor struck African-American juror named Owens, respondent’s attorney raised 2 THALER objection. determined respondent had made out prima facie Batson, prose cutor then offered race-neutral Owens’ during individual questioning. Specifically, asserted de meanor been “somewhat humorous” not “serious” her “body language” belied “true feeling.” App. Pet. Cert. 187. Based his observations Owens questioning by attorney, stated, he believed she “had predisposi tion” look possibility imposing sentence “in neutral fashion.” Id., 188. Re spondent’s did dispute prosecutor’s char acterization demeanor, answers jury questionnaire “show[ed] who [was] leaning towards State’s case.” Ibid. After considering arguments defense counsel, stated reason strike “race-neutral” denied without further explana tion. 189. proceeded trial, convicted sentenced death, Criminal affirmed conviction. Rejecting argument “a trial witness actual dire cannot, as matter law, fairly evaluate challenge,” id., 173, wrote: “There are many factors judge—even one preside examinations— can consider determining opponent strikes has met burden. These clude nature strength parties’ argu ments hearing attorneys’ credibility. And, necessary, 3 witnessed may refer record,” 173–174 (footnote omitted). With respect held Wallace’s acceptance expla nation erroneous noted “[t]he record does reflect congenial easygo ing attitude less formal than other veniremembers.” 172. writ certiorari. Haynes Texas, 535 999 (2002). courts application habeas relief, filed federal petition. District never deference state-court factual determinations mandated statute inapplicable observe selection. 80, n. 10. A panel granted certificate appealability with objec tions concerning juror. Quarterman, 526 F.3d 189, 202 (CA5 2008). In opinion granting certificate, discussed our length concluded: “Under Snyder’s . appel late applying arguably should find clear error reflects able verify upon peremp tory challenge.” F.3d, 199. same later ruled merits re claim regarding Owens,1 —————— Because violated rule legitimacy 4 adopted it previously termed “ar guabl[e].” See 199; 561 535, 541 2009). decisions owed “AEDPA deference” “because engaged pure appellate fact-finding issue turns en tirely demeanor.” “no court, including ours, now engage proper adjudication defendant’s demeanor-based Bat son because we will be relying solely paper thereby contravene clearly-established ‘factual inquiry’ requirement. See, e.g., Snyder, [552 S., 477]; [476 95].” (foot note II cannot obtain relief 28 C. §2254(d)(1) show “was contrary to, involved unreasonable of, estab lished Federal Supreme Court.” legal principle established” within mean provision only embodied holding Court. Carey Musladin, 549 70, 74 (2006); Williams Taylor, 529 362, 412 (2000). Under §2254(d)(1), petitioner (1) “if arrives conclusion opposite reached law decides differently set materially indistinguishable facts”; (2) identifies correct governing from Court’s unreasonably applies issued. 541, 5 facts prisoner’s 413. III entitled new cited Court, neither these cases meanor-based rejected personally relevant demeanor. supports requires “ ‘undertake sensitive inquiry circumstantial direct evidence intent available.” ’ ” 540 (quoting U.S., 93, turn quoting Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Devel opment Corp., 429 252, 266 (1977)). general requirement, however, establish Appeals’ rests. need “tak[e] account all possible explanatory particular case,” 95 (internal quotation marks also Miller-El Dretke, 545 231, 239 (2005); Johnson California, 162, 170 (2005). Thus, where emptory meanor, take account, among things, make dire. But plainly go hold tion recall Nor Snyder.2 Even alter add Batson’s (as 6 case, objections, thus no occasion how stages selection process. Sny der, 475–478. part relied concerned very problem. exercised reasons, (i.e., appeared nervous), overruled explanation. 478– 479. refuted and, light par ticular circumstances could sustained ground, might figured judge’s unexplained ruling. 479–486. Nothing analysis blanket below rest. “invoke[s] meanor,” “first hand observations” great importance. 477. And explaining why assume credited nervous, that, until some time after questioned, recalled do suggest absence seems concluded), constituted by” purposes decided nearly six years conviction became final more decision. 390 (2000) (opinion STEVENS, J.); O’Connor, J.). 7 sonal recollection accepted Indeed, quoted observation Hernandez New York, 500 352, 365 (1991) (plurality opinion), best exercising often attorney’s Accordingly, establishes categorical relied, verse remand proceedings consistent opinion. Our man date rejection Owens. On remand, con sider termination overcome statute’s standard reviewing court’s resolution questions fact. It so ordered.

Category: 0