Document: Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES T. FELKNER v. STEVEN FRANK JACKSON ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 10–797. Decided March 21, 2011 PER CURIAM. A California jury convicted respondent Steven Frank Jackson of numerous sexual offenses stemming from his attack on a 72-year-old woman who lived in apartment complex. raised Batson claim, asserting that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to exclude black prospective jurors basis their race. See Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Two three had been struck; third served jury. App. Pet. for Cert. 49–50. Jackson’s counsel did not object when struck first jurors, Juror Counsel later explained he make “motion at time” because thought excusal S “was close call.” After sought dismiss second juror, J, made motion challenging both strikes. Record 2:07-cv-00555-RJB (ED Cal.), Doc. 29, Lodged 7, pp. 76–77 (hereinaf ter Document 7). The offered race-neutral explanation striking each juror: stated ages 16 30 years old, was frequently stopped by Cali fornia police officers because—in view—of race and age. As put it, “Whether or still harbors any animosity is something I wanted roll dice with.” Id., 78; 10, 57–58, 98–100 (hereinafter 10). J 2 she master’s degree social work, interned county jail, “probably psych unit as sociolo gist some sort.” dis missed her “based educational background,” stating does “like keep workers.” 78–79; 188–189; 49. expressly disagreed only with prosecutor’s strike see 22–23, 47, arguing removing background “itself invidi ous discrimination.” responded aware workers were “protected class.” S, “let [Juror S] slide” anticipated response and, event, “only need[ed] one estab lish grounds for” motion. listening side’s arguments, trial court denied 78–80. renewed claim direct appeal, comparative juror analysis revealed explanations pretextual. With respect argued non-black ju ror—Juror 8—also negative experiences law enforcement but remained 47–48. 8 during selection while driving Illinois several earlier part what believed be “scam” Illi nois targeting drivers license plates. also complained disappointed failure investigate burglary car. 26–27, 56–57, 95–97. claimed prose cutor asked follow-up questions white concerned about back grounds, without asking ques 3 tions work. Court Appeal upheld court’s denial affirmed convic tions. appellate “[t]he ruling this issue reviewed substantial evidence,” 43 (internal quotation marks omitted), which courts have charac terized equivalent “clear error” standard em ployed federal courts, see, e.g., People Alvarez, 14 Cal. 4th 155, 196, 926 P.2d 365, 389 (1996). whether reasons pretex tual, it “give[s] great deference ability distinguish bona fide sham excuses.” 43. comparing 8, concluded “Juror 8’s experience out state car comparable S’s] per ceived harassment based race.” 48. recognized dismissal services background—“a proper reason”—and different treatment “backgrounds law, bio-chemistry environmental engineering.” noted “prosecutor focused J’s] internship experience” jail. Supreme petition review, habeas relief. Federal District properly re view governed Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA). That provides, pertinent part, relief may granted unless adjudication “resulted decision an unreasonable determination facts light evidence pre 4 sented State proceeding.” 28 C. §2254(d)(2). considering reviewing record evidence, held Appeal’s findings unreasonable. 24. therefore petition. Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed three-paragraph unpublished memorandum opinion. Fed. Appx. 640 (2010). In so doing, discuss specific mention reasoning other rejected claim. Instead, after setting forth basic legal principles two paragraphs, Ap peals one-sentence conclusory its decision: “The proffered bases peremptorily African-American sufficient counter purpose ful discrimination fact stricken, reflected comparably situated jurors.” 641. inexplicable unexplained. It reversed. before us turns largely “evalua tion credibility.” U.S., 98, n. 21. entitled “great deference,” ibid., “must sustained clearly erroneous,” Snyder Louisiana, 552 472, 477 (2008). review. On ha beas AEDPA “imposes highly deferential stan dard evaluating state-court rulings” “demands decisions given benefit doubt.” Renico Lett, 559 ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., 5) omitted). Here 5 credited explanations, carefully length upholding find ings. plainly There simply no reach opposite conclusion, particularly such dismissive manner. certiorari leave proceed forma pauperis are granted. judgment reversed, case remanded further proceedings consistent ordered.

Category: 1