Opinion ID: 780969
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Racial Slurs

Text: 130 Mason argues that he was denied a fair trial because of the racial prejudice of an all-white jury, which manifested itself through generalizations about race 16 and the use of black slang. 17 Individual jurors were disturbed by the racist comments but apparently did not understand that they could do anything about it. After reviewing the affidavits of all twelve jurors 18 and hearing testimony from the court bailiff, three jurors, and an alternate juror, the trial court found that [a]t no time during the trial did any of the jurors participate in any acts of racism which could have impaired [Mason's] ability to receive a fair trial. J.A. at 1487. 131 The question on habeas is whether Mason can rebut the presumption that the state court's factual findings are correct. Alternate juror Mary Beckholt (Beckholt) testified that the racist comments, in her opinion, could have violated Mason's right to a fair trial: I felt it was unfair. I felt it was wrong, and I felt that people were making — if they were judging — making judgmental comments of that sort, how could they fairly judge the case? J.A. at 1401. Beckholt, however, did not participate in the jury's deliberations. Because Mason does not offer any evidence other than that which the trial court had at the time it made its factual finding, we deny habeas relief with respect to this claim.