Opinion ID: 765959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Ultimate Question of Purposeful Discrimination

Text: 45 We review for clear error the district court's ultimate finding that the prosecutor did not purposefully discriminate. See United States v. De Gross, 960 F.2d 1433, 1442 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc). 46 Substantial evidence supports the district court's finding. The record reflectsthe prosecutor's legitimate concern over Ms. Mitchell's failure to reveal that she had been a victim of a violent crime. The trial Judge's ruling that Ms. Mitchell's omission was honest and did not warrant for-cause removal did not preclude the prosecutor from disagreeing and using a peremptory challenge to remove her. See J.E.B., 511 U.S. at 148 (O'Connor, J. Concurring) (That a trial lawyer's instinctive assessment of a juror's pre-Disposition cannot meet the high standards of a challenge for cause does not mean that the lawyer's instinct is erroneous.). 47 With regard to Ms. Goodloe, the state trial Judge's comments about her apathy, and the lack of any employment history or occupation on her questionnaire, corroborate the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations given during the evidentiary hearing in the district court. 48 In sum, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Stubbs's state trial prosecutor did not purposefully discriminate on the basis of race in his use of peremptory challenges. 2