Legal Document

537 U.S. 322 MILLER-ELv.COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION No. 01-7662. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 16, 2002. Decided February 25, 2003. When Dallas County prosecutors used peremptory strikes to exclude 10 the 11 African-Americans eligible serve on jury at petitioner's capital murder trial, he moved strike ground that exclusions violated equal protection. Petitioner presented extensive evidence supporting his motion a pretrial hearing, but trial judge denied relief, finding no indicating systematic exclusion blacks, as was required by then-controlling precedent, Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202. Subsequently, found petitioner guilty, and sentenced death. While appeal pending, this established, in Batson Kentucky, 476 79, three-part process for evaluating protection claims such petitioner's. Upon remand from Texas Criminal Appeals new findings light Batson, original court held hearing which it admitted all took further evidence, concluded failed satisfy step one because did not even raise an inference racial motivation State's use challenges. The also determined State would have prevailed steps two three had proffered credible, race-neutral explanations excluded—i. e., their reluctance assess, or reservations concerning, imposition death penalty—such could prove purposeful discrimination. After direct state habeas petitions were denied, filed federal petition under 28 C. § 2254, raising claim other issues. Federal District relief deference courts' acceptance prosecutors' justifications striking potential jurors, subsequently 2253 application certificate appealability (COA). Fifth Circuit noted COA will issue "only if applicant has made substantial showing denial constitutional right," §2253(c)(2); reasoned must make "substantial showing" standard set forth Slack McDaniel, 529 473; declared §2254(d)(2) presume state-court correct unless result decision unreasonable clear convincing evidence; applied framework deny COA. Petitioner's concerning selection procedures falls into broad categories. First, presented, testimony relating pattern practice race discrimination voir dire Attorney's Office, including 1976 policy office minorities service available least prosecutors. Second, years later, same court, directly related conduct case, comparative analysis venire members demonstrating excluded ratio significantly higher than Caucasians; that, during dire, prosecution questioned racially disparate fashion penalty views, willingness impose minimum sentence murder, responses disclosing hesitation punishment cited justification jurors; prosecution's criminal procedure known "jury shuffling" assure white selected preference African-Americans. Held: should issued review Court's petitioner. Pp. 335-348. (a) Before prisoner seeking postconviction §2254 may district court's dismissal petition, first seek obtain circuit justice judge, 2253. This is jurisdictional prerequisite. A only §2253's requirements been satisfied. seeks COA, appeals limit its examination threshold inquiry underlying merit claims. E. g., Slack, S., 481. does require full consideration factual legal bases Consistent with precedent statutory text, need demonstrate "a right." §2253(c)(2). He satisfies jurists reason disagree resolution case issues adequate deserve encouragement proceed further. id., 484. convince or, matter, judges, prevail, reasonable find assessment debatable wrong, ibid. 335-338. (b) Since rests violation, requires preliminary, though definitive, three-step framework. now concedes satisfied one, acknowledges proceeded through proffering facially these strikes. critical question determining whether proved persuasiveness prosecutor's strike. Purkett Elem, 514 765, 768 (per curiam). comes down finds be credible. Credibility can measured by, among factors, demeanor; how reasonable, improbable, are; rationale some basis accepted strategy. plurality context absence discriminatory intent pure fact" accorded significant overturned clearly erroneous. Hernandez New York, 500 352, 364-365. Where 2254 applies, jurisprudence embodies deference. Factual determinations courts are presumed absent contrary, 2254(e)(1), adjudicated merits based determination grounds objectively proceeding, §2254(d)(2). Even habeas, imply abandonment abdication judicial review. In claim, suffice support issuance adduce despite neutral explanation prosecution, final based. Cf. Reeves Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 133. 338-341. (c) On record stage, concludes give put prima facie case. Instead, without evaluation demeanor jurors trial. evaluated way. ruling lacked sufficient justify appellate proceedings, recited granting writ interpreted requiring evidence. too demanding incorrectly merged pertains issues, rather decisions, unreasonableness requirement 2254(d)(2), relates applies relief. More fundamentally, incorrect inquiring right" proved, 2253(c)(2) requires. debatability debate. debate acted race-based when prospective raised statistical 91% venire; fact occasion credibility contemporaneous time then, dictated Swain, it; rationales African-Americans—ambivalence about penalty, hesitancy vote execute defendants capable being rehabilitated, jurors' own family history criminality — pertained just well who challenged jury; questioning; failure consider shuffle historical Office. 341-348. 261 F. 3d 445, reversed remanded. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, post, p. 348. THOMAS, dissenting 354. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT. Seth P. Waxman argued cause With him briefs David W. Ogden, Robin A. Lenhardt, Jim Marcus, Andrew Hammel. Gena Bunn, Assistant Attorney General Texas, respondent. her brief John Cornyn, General, Howard G. Baldwin, Jr., First Michael T. McCaul, Deputy Edward L. Marshall, Charles Palmer, Deni Garcia, Attorneys General.* JUSTICE KENNEDY Court. 1 we once again examine corpus. 1986 assistant attorneys tried Thomas Joe Miller-El. During ensuing 17 years, unsuccessful establishing, either conviction vacated Equal Protection Clause our holding 79 (1986). arises standards applicable controlled corpus statute codified Title 28, chapter 153, States Code, most recently amended manner Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA). interest finality AEDPA constrains power disturb convictions. 2 Northern after reviewing before establish violation warranting Circuit, concluding there insufficient (COA) determination. subject decision. 3 At here imposes court. Congress mandates automatic right petition. resolving decide permission initiate 473, 481 (2000). prior text statute, reiterate U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). conclude supra, Applying principles application, issued. 4 * 5 Petitioner, wife Dorothy Miller-El, Kenneth Flowers robbed Holiday Inn Dallas, Texas. They emptied cash drawers ordered employees, Doug Walker Donald Hall, lie floor. Hall gagged strips fabric, hands feet bound. asked going kill Hall. hesitated refused, shot twice back side. died wounds. 6 indicted murder. pleaded place five weeks March 1986. concluded, Fourteenth Amendment excluding occurred 202 (1965), then controlling precedent. As required, sought show part larger aimed service. 12, 1986, motion. however, "no ... indicated any blacks matter office; while done individual cases." App. 813. jury. Ibid. Twelve days guilty; 7 appealed Appeals. April 30, decided Kentucky established prosecutor challenges Clause. defendant challenge exercised race. 96-97. made, offer juror question. Id., 97-98. Third, parties' submissions, determine shown 98. 8 acknowledging discrimination, remanded Batson. Miller-El State, 748 2d 459 (1988). post-trial May 10, 1988 (a little over empaneled). There, 843-844. 9 January 13, 1989, "did state's challenges" 876. Notwithstanding conclusion, offered each African-American excluded. prosecutorial veniremen question" "that primary reasons exercise against [was] assess penalty." 878. There discussion appeal, certiorari. 510 831 (1993). proceedings fared better, pursuant 2254. Although four concern ourselves premised Magistrate Judge considered troubled adduced proceedings. He, nevertheless, recommended, adopted recommendation. Pursuant 2253, denied. renewed request 12 principles, "`only right.'" Johnson, 449 (2001) (quoting 2253(c)(2)). Citing 473 (2000), "[a] makes `substantial showing' demonstrates involves reason, another resolve differently, further." 3d, 449. interjected determination: "As 2254(d)(2) presented. And unreasonableness, any, See 2254(e)(1)." 451. 13 present contrary." 452. consequence, "determined adjudication neither resulted nor contrary law Court," ibid.; We granted 534 1122 (2002). B 14 reverse counsels us explain detail procedures. dire. discuss latter first. 15 Caucasians were. Of 108 possible reviewed defense, 20 African-American. Nine them excused agreement parties. remaining, black removed contrast 13% (4 out 31) nonblack qualified 16 These numbers, relevant, whole views Responses disclosed challenge. Wainwright Witt, 469 412 (1985). suggests, varied To extent divergence attributed mode examination, relevant inquiry. Most (53%, 15) given detailed description mechanics execution Texas: 18 "[I]f those [sentencing] questions answered yes, point[,] taken Huntsville, placed row house where strapped gurney, IV arm injected substance verdict yes." 215. 19 Only they render leading Very few (6%, 49) preface punishment. Rather, vague terms: "Would you share your personal feelings, could, words do feel secondly, type actually Defendant evidence?" 506. more pronounced difference, apparent race, Under unwillingness so warranted removal cause. Huffman 450 858, 861 (Tex. Crim. 1970), part, 408 936 (1972). strategy normally defense weed pro-state venire, but, ironically, employed here. identified years' imprisonment 34 36 (94%) members, asked: "If hear way thinking [that] calls warrants justifies you'll it?" 509. contrast, eight (12.5%) informed what impose. typical questioning seven follows: 21 "[Prosecutor]: Now, maximum [murder] . life law. Can me idea feelings offense I've you? 22 "[Juror]: Well, that's almost like it's premeditated. But said don't premeditated 23 24 Again, we're talking self-defense accident insanity killing heat passion anything that. We're knowing— 25 I know minimum. amount say twenty years." 226-227. 26 Furthermore, points shuffling. permits parties rearrange order examined increase likelihood visually preferable forward empaneled. information appearance, party requesting literally shuffles cards, reseated order. Tex. Code Proc. Ann., Art. 35.11 (Vernon Supp. 2003). Shuffling affects composition dismissed end week, panel appears following week. So shuffled less likely serve. 27 occasions requested predominant number front panel. yet complained purported inadequacy card lawyer lodged formal objection postshuffle revealed forward. Next, turn hearing. subpoenaed current former attorneys, others observed firsthand years. witnesses existence African-Americans, disagreed. testified served Office late-1950's early-1960's, superior warned fired permitted Similarly, attorney 1978 believed juries. 29 importance, 1963 circular instructed minorities: "`Do take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans member minority jury, rich educated.'" 710. manual entitled "Jury Selection Case" distributed It contained article authored (and later judge) direction superiors outlining reasoning written 1968, remained circulation until 1976, Miller-El's 749, 774, 783. 30 Some casts doubt practices discontinued For example, 1985, trying cases courtroom selection. Other admission, reduce venire. 788. Concerns echoed County's Chief Public Defender. 31 petitioner, background heard II 32 mandated absolute entitlement entertained, judge. prerequisite "[u]nless appealability, appeals. ." 2253(c)(1). result, lack jurisdiction rule petitioners. 33 "The establishes procedural rules entertain appeal." 482; Hohn States, 524 236, 248 (1998). 2253(c) 483, recognized standard, announced Barefoot Estelle, 463 880 (1983), constitutes requisite showing. "sho[w] (or, agree that) resolved different `adequate further.'" 484 Barefoot, 893, n. 4). overview general merits. look ask amongst reason. fact, forbids it. sidesteps deciding justifying actual merits, essence jurisdiction. 35 end, succeed. Accordingly, decline merely believes mean very she prevail. consistent instances certainty ultimate all, sought, premise "`has already endeavor.'" 4. Our misconstrued directing always issue. Statutes more, fewer, restrictions grant writs prisoners. Duncan Walker, 533 167, 178 ("`AEDPA's purpose [is] comity, finality, federalism'" Williams Taylor, 420, 436 (2000))); 362, 399 (2000) (opinion J.). concept threshold, gateway, test innovation AEDPA. 1908, large "concerned increasing frivolous challenging sentences delayed pending completion process. 892, 3. By enacting AEDPA, using specific elaborated earlier test, confirmed necessity differential treatment deserving attention plainly not. follows pro forma course. 37 "`something frivolity'" mere "good faith" part. 893. prove, Indeed, every jurist might agree, received consideration, stated "[w]here rejected §2253(c) straightforward: wrong." 38 reaffirmed precedents. 765 (1995) curiam); 352 (1991) (plurality opinion). Contrary remand, one: "[T]here dispute claim" Brief Respondent 32. remaining three: "has carried burden proving discrimination." Hernandez, 359. 39 768, "implausible fantastic probably will) pretexts instance 40 deference: 41 "Deference particular sense because, `largely credibility.' 98, 21. inquiry, decisive counsel's believed. seldom much bearing issue, best often exercises mind juror, lies `peculiarly within judge's province.' 412, 428 (1985), citing Patton Yount, 467 1025, 1038 (1984)." 365. 42 Deference necessary analyzes transcripts positioned determinations. accepts believed, fail see nevertheless goes heart analysis, settled, seems nothing left review." 367. 43 review, therefore, "the represents sort great appeal" 364. collateral respect due system. §2254(d)(2); Williams, 44 definition preclude and, guided supported saying includes facts circumstances 133 (in action VII Civil Rights 1964, employee's employer's response pretext discrimination). neutrality rebutted contrary. deference, §§ (e)(1), C 45 difficulty conclude, 46 level. Appeals, looking merge independent (e)(1). subsection decisions. Subsection (d)(2) contains 47 moreover, fundamental True, disagreement finding, objective apply. definitive matter. said, separate distinct U.S., 481; Hohn, 241. inquired proved. Deciding undermines 48 alone raises jurors. total, Happenstance unlikely produce disparity. 49 weakened treatment. "[t]he presumption correctness especially strong, where, here, same." noted, many strikes, usual risks imprecision distortion passage time. 50 explained six ambivalence penalty; rehabilitated; criminality. rebuttal explanation, empaneled expressed similar counterparts One appropriate offense, "difficult" sentence. sentencing histories. appear neutral, selective considerations. Whether unnecessary conclusion occurred. 51 Appeals' dismissive strained interpretation questioning. 452 ("The fully record"). argues sole elicit reflected opposition sentence, justified for-cause then-applicable remote possibility. Disparate occur. submits created appearance divergent opinions members' same. outset, resulting pretextual. differences posed 97 ("Similarly, statements exercising refute purpose"). 52 gave explicit account punishment, 53% 6% persons. explains disparity asserting disproportionate doubts questionnaires. cannot inconsistent explanation. calculations, questionnaires; group, whites description. 53 greater along lines punishments. Ninety-four percent compared twelve half No Pierre Louisiana, 306 354, 361-362 (1939) ("`The appropriately direct, brushed aside.' Had obtainable contradict disprove assumed refrained introducing it" Norris 294 587, 594-595 (1935))). precise line mandatory minimums instant Chambers 784 29, 1989). follows, view, fair designed 93 ("Circumstantial invidious include proof impact.... impact `may practical purposes unconstitutionality various difficult nonracial grounds'"). 54 seated panel, delay defense's revealed, suspicion concerns amplified it, apparently ignored, had, manipulate past. 788 (noting "because six, ten blacks"). shuffling denominated involve challenge, tends erode assertion motivating factor 55 Finally, accord weight Evidence indicates categorically 94 ("Proof `result bespeaks discrimination'"); Vasquez Hillery, 474 254, 259 (1986) ("As early 1942, contention grand summarily `chance hardly accounted continuous omission negroes lists long period sixteen more'" Hill 316 400, 404 (1942))); 347 475, 482 (1954) ("But taxes credulity chance class thousand called past years"). addressed import claim; both unexplained disturbing. Irrespective charge reveals culture suffused bias course, legitimacy motives actions stage suggests ignorant Both joined training supposition reinforced marked cards. 56 mention adhere proposition addressing failure, diminish significance. heightened somehow error, declines defend ruling. assertions rebutting defendant's `would vain illusory requirement.'" 98 Norris, 598). 57 secure corresponding "objectively unreasonable" able burden. That not, us. asks debatable. convinces was. 58 judgment reversed, opinion. 59 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal Former Prosecutors Judges Elisabeth Semel, D. Weisselberg, Carter Phillips; NAACP Legal Defense Educational Fund, et al. Elaine R. Jones, Norman J. Chachkin, James Cott, George Kendall, Deborah Fins, Miriam Gohara. 60 concurring. 61 join write separately reasons: why believe 1996's (AEDPA) limits 2253(c). side case— which, inadequate (as holds) claimed (1986), undebatable, still this, my close 62 Many decisions applications merits—without analyzing right. See, e. Kasi Angelone, 300 487 (CA4 2002); Wheat 238 357 (CA5 2000).* today disapproves approach, improperly resolves stage. Ante, 331, Less "circuit judge," "look [a petitioner's] reason." 336 (emphasis added). How 2253(c)(2), seemingly role 63 Section provides (Emphasis added.) entitle COA; condition. Nothing prohibits imposing additional requirements, approved (holding ruling). 64 requirement: rights violated, substantive provision bars 336. suppose presents debatable, unable "clearly established" (which previously proceedings). impossible 2254(d). approach consonant COA's preventing meritless appeals, compatible 2253(c), condition 65 applying ability surrounding claims, viewed 2254(e)(1)'s overcome reveal close, clear, 66 maintains victims motivated strikes: Edwin Rand, Wayman Kennedy, Roderick Bozeman, Billy Jean Fields, Warren, Carrol Boggess. them, Five primarily (Rand, Boggess), (Fields) (among reasons) brother convicted drug offenses prison. challenges, 767-768 Unless (i.e., whether) fraudulently Moreover, entered pretextual, 878, reasonably thought contradicted 2254(e)(1) ("[A] shall correct. evidence"). 67 weakness stems identifying unchallenged venireman similarly situated aforementioned veniremen. veniremen, Sandra Hearn Marie Mazza, ambivalent Boggess, bear out. initially inappropriate first-time offenders, "I couldn't sit you're 694. She someone extreme child abuser deserved offense. Reply 14a. pro-prosecution distaste defendants' psychiatric incompetency. 17a. "It's kind hard somebody's life, live die, something that—a think other." 519. 68 Compare sentiments Kennedy mass "Normally wouldn't average no, sentence." 216. Bozeman "if there's rehabilitate person somebody mentally disturbed Manson that." 79. repeated violent indicate beyond rehabilitation, replied, "No, really." Warren refused answer regarding numerous 139-140 ("Well, again, situation, know, sometimes"); 140. accomplishes anything, answered, "Yes no. Sometimes sometimes [sic]. mixed things asked, "What does?," know." Boggess referred "murder," 197, "whether go murder—with taking person's know. I'd trouble that," Rand closer His statement "Can this? You can, tomorrow not." 161 (internal quotation marks omitted). Later juror. 162-164. Mazza (the seated) imposed penalty. most, (Rand) Mazza. perhaps enough permit de novo observing disputed violation. factfindings provide "clear evidence" erred, 69 sixth However, several convictions 124. (Warren discussed, relatives convictions—Warren's fraud relation food stamps, witness nephew's theft, 211, reported questionnaire cousins problems law, Joint Lodging 43.) histories therefore "should struck" prosecution—three (Noad Vickery, Cheryl Davis, Chatta Nix) struck 111. fourth, Joan Weiner, son shoplifted age 10. 511. comparable Fields's Weiner strong worked enforcement, 510, unequivocal, 506, 70 above reasons, room far implausible. 71 72 observations, 73 dissenting. 74 Unpersuaded "there prosecut[ion] strikes," carry "presum[e]" "to correct" rebut "by evidence." majority decides, ignore command. cannot. Because shown, respectfully dissent. 75 76 agrees, ante, 342, ordinarily correctness: 77 "In proceeding instituted custody 78 implicitly rejects obvious "proceeding corpus." Instead presuming correct, requires, holds 341. main supposed fidelity 338 wrong'" 484)). ever "constitutional turns entirely fact. circumstances, governs. 80 Unlike majority, begin plain instructs treat "proceeding" 2254(e)(1). word, "proceeding," means regular orderly progression lawsuit, acts events between commencement entry judgment." Black's Law Dictionary 1221 (7th ed. 1999) "standing alone, assert grievance anyone, remedy redress injury, `party' 256 (1998) (SCALIA, dissenting). 81 appeal. takes wrong implies (or "proceeding") Overwhelming authority (including opinion) confirms 342; Weaver Bowersox, 241 1024, 1030 (CA8 2001); Putman Head, 268 1223, 1241 (CA11 Johnson Gibson, 254 1155, 1160 (CA10 Francis Stone, 221 100, 114-115 (CA2 2000); Weeks Snyder, 219 245, 258 (CA3 Mueller 181 557, 575 1999); Ashford Gilmore, 167 1130, 1131 (CA7 cf. Sumner Mata, 539, 546-547 (1981) (pre-Antiterrorism virtually identical language appeal). treated draws distinction silent simply illogical. status "proceeding." 82 rejection conflicts pre-AEDPA practice. Prior access governed mechanism probable cause, CPC. 480. to, weaker than, 2254(d) (1994 ed.).1 provisions (indistinguishable AEDPA's purposes), predecessor CPC filtering "debatability" contexts. e.g., Barnard Collins, 871, 876-877 1994); Cordova 953 169 1992). straightforward notion proceeding. 83 "case" 1254, hold, logic require, regarded rest merits...." 246 analogized filing notice 247, civil ("instituted by" complaint) 84 errs, albeit dicta, factfinding—here hearing2—is excuse 342-343. putting aside would) heavy 2-year-old findings,3 tension ignores changes wrought 85 correctness. assume factfinder complete Procedural imperfections affect presumption; thus, late less-than-perfect record. Admittedly conditions odds locate helpful "presume" "correct" allow evade attacking factfindings. 86 reading did, create exceptions infirmities. defer factfinding afford hearing," ed.), material adequately developed 2254(d)(3), receive full, fair, 2254(d)(6). forecloses marginal complaints—such hearing—to "how much" factfinding. 87 read contain implied sliding scale understand dicta purport interpret 2254(e)(1).4 88 supplies governing convincing" "reasonable debate," omitted), meets simple truth remotely resembling 89 amassed grouped categories: (1) juries; (2) shuffle" tactic prosecution; (3) alleged similarity were: Carroll Boggess; (4) so-called veniremen's 90 "historical" circumstantial, bring itself "casts [discriminatory] trial." 335. proves intentional forces admit eliminate did.5 Ultimately, categories address genuineness making 91 short, SCALIA "close case," 348 (concurring opinion), losing explore arguments advanced deemed establishing "debatable" majority's less-thorough permissive attitude toward movant's representations. 92 unstruck whites. repeat SCALIA'S dissection tales 350-353 cursory remark "three [black] jury," 343 added), flatly deserves discussion. correctly "similarly situated" misleading, stating "prosecutors [veniremens'] criminality." implication clarify: having Fields prodefense remarks rehabilitation. Simple deduction, contentions names allegedly ibid., unearthed who, individuals previous brushes law.6 produces rehabilitation history.7 "Similarly matching juror—it them. 95 leaves Bozeman.8 alleges demonstrated absurd slightly better Rand. 352-353 since show, sliver combined circumstantial presumption. 96 accounts "disparate questioning" substance. depending subjects: allowed Neither accusation withstand careful help assemble counters complaints "graphic formulation" "script" arguing depiction "expressed questionnaires." 17. discounts "[t]his inquiry." 344. bears focuses supposedly notes got graphic did. 344-345. neglects thinks formulation, 15, 19, emphatically opposed clarifying position willingly antagonize ardently portrait implementation. pursued perfect sense: draw venireman's script, overkill 99 stricken spend Nelson wrote questionnaire, anyone's life," Tr. Voir Dire F85-78668-NL (5th Dist. Ct., County, Tex.), 625 (hereinafter VDR) flatly, penalty."9 614. 662-663. Linda Berk "always" 1449, felt strongly remarked upon discomfort, stated, "[y]ou're I'm getting emotional, okay?" 1445. Later, begun crying, 1478. Gene Hinson curtly, form didn't it," 1648, Sheila White penalty," 2056, 100 firm views. Margaret Gibson said: started. solves anything," 485, Holtz policeman fireman murdered. 1021. apprehend fault failing lethal injection 101 recognize indirectly respondent's script typically outset dire—before quoted stark answers. Nevertheless, supports view unclear questionnaires formulation—and adamantly 102 forms Question "Do penalty?," circle "yes" "no," "[p]lease answer." (Boggess questionnaire). "no" answering question: moral, religious, beliefs prevent returning ultimately human being?" 103 deeper clearer (but have) came (presumably 58). view. Hinson, "put [he] [the penalty] moral religious reasons." VDR 1648. Nelson, receiving life." Fernando Gutierrez, 56, 58, "moral, beliefs" obstruct voting 205. 104 differently. formulation (whose record) (Bozeman), (Fields), (Warren), (Rand). ambiguous answers expressing hesitation, philosophical opposition, 58. 44. "[o]nly cases, multiple murders." 51. Troy Woods 180. [sic] punishment," space provided 56. happened completely hence formulation), enthusiastic supporter was, Further confirming Baker, Janice Mackey, Paul Bailey, Anna Keaton formulation. Pretrial Hearings F85-78660-NL Tex.) (Def. Exh. 7).10 105 sum up, correlation stronger Sixteen penalty,11 script.12 Eight script.13 words, 24, 96%, whom available, accurately predict script.14 theory race-to-script 74%—far worse.15 106 fares allegation scripts asking argument flawed last one. admits effort get employ "manipulative" rely testimony, 107 Seven varying degrees. Boggess' exhaustively discussed. Baker Fields. Baker's Fields' 7, convinced strike.16 Woods, 17, 23, sense. excellent juror—why him? expect methods, deployed black. questioning, unrebutted poor (using criteria respondent here) otherwise agreement, script. Thus, "State's manipulative method vast veniremembers meaning removed. peremptorily struck,17 Baker. 109 110 Quite simply, speculation hold up thorough Far presumption, discrimination—but mine. affirm logical development error takenwithout COA—in flat contravention 2253(c)(1)(A). Bates Lee, 308 411 2002). provided: competent appear, [enumerated omitted].... evidentiary erroneous." Not hindered. post-trialBatson those, 856-860. am puzzled againstrespondent testify easily unconstitutional representing certain 865. counsel explicitly opportunity offered. move efficient redundant redound benefit do, inHernandez (1991), curiam), guiding instance, confirm Purkett, 768-769; 364-365 opinion); 372 (O'CONNOR, judgment); Additionally, Hernandez's clear-error applicant, determines error. Marshall Lonberger, 422, 434-435 (1983) ("We greatly intended authorize broader authorized system itself"). times; times. directs Noad Nix, histories, equally 22. demonstrates, werenot 351-352 Again none justificationAnte, 353-354 fits equivalent Hearn. "everyone rehabilitated." 118. went "[i]t far-fetched, like, really talked God commits himself, whereas committed around, rehabilitation." "believe[d] tries muddy waters pointing respects, good 24-25. change everyone rehabilitated thus swayed penitent testimony) insisted people rehabilitated. focus "reasonableness asserted motive [but] [on] motive." 769 original). correctlyalleged venireman, believes, erroneously, 351-353 concurring), doctor presumably described Questions thereto, page questionnaire. "[m]y strongest feeling penalty;however, aware overcrowding jails murders[,] writing "undecided" instead. Mackey "Thou Shall Kill" space. well. Bailey circled "NO" around "yes major crime" "[n]o anothe ones (Emphases original.) punished anyone." However 1648 (Hinson), (Nelson); (Rand), 125 (Mary Sumrow), 132 (Ronnie Long), 140 (Weiner), 148 (Mazza), 156 (Vivian Sztybel), 164 (Debra McDowell), 172 (Kevin Duke), 189 (Brenda Walsh), 197 (Filemon Zablan), 213 (Hearn) Sztybel 2828 Keaton, considers (answering "yes") (though "no"). assumptions, 58—indicating penalty—did penalty—or yields accuracy rate 22, whites, predicted 74% 110; 502-511 (Gibson), 1046-1050 (Holtz)

Classification Label: 0