Opinion ID: 1036479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Atwater v. Crosby (2006)

Text: In Atwater, a 2006 decision in a § 2254 capital case, this Court emphasized that a state court decision is still entitled to AEDPA deference where the state court engages in “some evaluation” but improperly condenses the second and third steps of Batson. 451 F.3d at 807. At trial, Atwater objected to the State’s peremptory strike of the sole black venire member, and the state trial court required the prosecutor to provide a raceneutral reason for the strike. Id. at 804–05. The prosecutor stated that he struck the venire member because of her demeanor and voir dire answers, which suggested she was hesitant about serving in a death penalty case. Id. at 805. Atwater’s counsel disagreed. Id. The trial court then said that, in “observing that particular juror, [it] thought that she did respond with difficulty to the questions that were asked.” Id. The court found the “State’s peremptory challenge will be well-taken.” Id. In Atwater’s direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, giving only this four-sentence Batson analysis: Upon Atwater’s objection to the peremptory challenge, the trial court inquired as to the State’s reasons. The record reflects that the court’s inquiry was adequate and the record supports the State’s explanation for exercising the challenge. The court expressly noted that the prospective juror had difficulty answering the questions put to her and 89 Case: 12-14421 Date Filed: 08/01/2013 Page: 90 of 128 her demeanor indicated that she was hesitant and uncomfortable regarding the death penalty. This is a valid, race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge, and the court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the challenge. Id. at 806–07 (quoting Atwater v. State, 626 So. 2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 1993)). Considering the analysis of the state appellate court quoted above, this Court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court had “improperly condensed the second and third steps of Batson.” Id. at 807. “However, given the great deference afforded the determinations of state courts under § 2254,” this Court said we could not “reach the conclusion that the trial court or the Florida Supreme Court unreasonably applied Batson in this case” under § 2254(d)(1). Id. This was because “the trial court went beyond a mere finding that the state articulated a race neutral reason for the strike—the trial court engaged in some evaluation of the prosecutor’s reasons for the strike and determined that the race neutral reason given . . . was supportable.” Id. (emphasis added). “Therefore, the third step of the Batson analysis was touched.” Id.