Opinion ID: 6334902
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Murray’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus

Text: On February 19, 2019, Murray filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Among other things, Murray argued that the trial court erroneously sustained the prosecution’s reverse-Batson challenges to Jurors 5 and 17. The district court denied the petition on all grounds. But because “jurists of reason could disagree” on the resolution of Murray’s reverseBatson claim, the court issued a certificate of appealability solely with respect to that claim. App’x at 29. The district court reasoned that, to the extent Murray’s claim was merely one for the wrongful disallowance of state-created peremptory strikes, it was not cognizable on federal habeas review absent evidence that the individuals seated on the jury were not impartial. But to the extent that Murray’s claim was based on the state trial court’s improper 9 application of the Batson process, the district court noted concern as to whether the state court “impermissibly terminated the Batson inquiry at the second step, thus improperly shifting the burden of persuasion to Murray in contravention of Purkett [v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768 (1995)].” Id. at 23. Ultimately, the district court concluded that it was not unreasonable for the Appellate Division to determine that the state trial court in effect considered pretext as required at Batson step three. Respondent-Appellee Joseph H. Noeth (the “State”) moved to alter the district court’s judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), contending that the district court should not have granted Murray a certificate of appealability. The district court denied the State’s motion. Murray then filed this appeal.