Court Opinion

ID: 9800069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 07:53:15.819811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:39.612574
License: Public Domain

GRABER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and specially concurring in part:
I concur in the result and in the analysis of Claims Two, Three, and Four.
With respect to Claim One, Libby argues that the Nevada courts’ method of conducting comparative juror analysis contravened clearly established federal law as set out by the Supreme Court of the United States. For that reason, he argues, we should review this claim de novo. But even if we did so, I would not find purposeful gender discrimination in jury selection. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment without considering (either explicitly or implicitly) whether the Nevada courts’ legal analysis was flawed. In my view, the standard of review here does not determine the outcome.