Court Opinion

ID: 9580050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:01:22.500375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:59.661086
License: Public Domain

BYE, Circuit Judge,
with whom SMITH, Circuit Judge, joins,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The deferential standard of review called for by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AED-PA) neither requires nor permits us to sacrifice fidelity to constitutional principles at the altar of federalism. Today the majority eschews this bedrock principle and deems the state trial court’s flagrant disregard of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 93, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), constitutionally sound. In so doing, the court places its imprimatur upon a constitutionally flawed process which will ultimately lead to Herbert Smulls’s death. Because I cannot condone the actions of the Missouri courts, I respectfully dissent from the decision affirming the denial of Smulls’s Batson challenge. I concur in the majority’s denial of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
I
During jury selection at Smulls’s trial, defense counsel objected to the prosecutor’s exercise of a peremptory challenge to remove Margaret Sidney from the jury. Counsel identified Sidney as African-American and argued the prosecutor’s challenge violated Batson. The prosecutor offered the following explanation for the challenge:
Judge, I made nine strikes. I did strike the juror Ms. Sidney who, I guess, for the record was a black female. My reasons for striking Ms. Sidney are based both upon what I observed during our voir dire and based upon my experience in trying criminal lawsuits, which has exceeded 50 cases in this courthouse including several eases before this Court in the nine years that I have been a prosecuting attorney. My concerns with Ms. Sidney began yesterday. Ms. Sidney was very silent during all of the questioning. I observed at one point during my questioning concerning the death penalty a glare on her face as I was questioning that area. She was seated in the back row, I believe, yesterday. When I looked directly at her and asked that last row a question, she averted her eyes and wouldn’t answer my question and wouldn’t look at me. That made me very nervous. The only response I was able to get out of Ms. Sidney today was when I asked her about her occupation. At first she responded with what I though [sic] was a very irritated answer. She indicated that she is a mail sorter for Monsanto Company. That she sorts mail for, I believe she said, 5000 people. And her *869husband works for the post office. And I believe she listed him as a custodian. It’s been my experience in the nine years that I’ve been a prosecutor that I treat people who work as mail sorters and as mail carriers, letter carriers and people who work for the U.S. Post Office with great suspicion in that they have generally — -in my experience in many of the trials that I’ve had — are very disgruntled, unhappy people with the system and make every effort to strike back. In my experience as a prosecutor, in trying cases where I’ve had several cases and left mail people on the jury, had them result in a hung jury. The most recent of which was a murder case in this courthouse last September, State versus Dana Ruff (phonetically) where a mail carrier was the holdout for a hung jury in that case. I also have several in-laws who are employees of the postal department and even though they are somewhat relatives, I share the same opinion of them. So I treat them with great suspicion. When she glared at me and just her general attitude, which included her outfit — which yesterday, I believe, included a beret and today was a ball cap with sequins on it, I just felt that she wouldn’t be a good states [sic] juror. Certainly, not a strong juror in the consideration of death, should we get to that part of the trial. And also I would point out for the Court that I struck juror number eight, Ms. Dillard. I struck her for the very same reason in that she is a letter carrier and works delivering mail. And I though [sic] her attitude was also confrontational. And I did not feel that her answers were ones that would give rise to me believing she would be a strong states [sic] juror. Ms. Dillard, I would point out, is a white female. And I struck her for virtually the same reasons. It’s been my experience that when I left postal workers on who seem to have an attitude, based on my interpretation, that I’ve had bad results. And that’s why I struck her.
Appellant’s App. at 14-16.
Without permitting any response from Smulls’s lawyer, the trial court overruled the Batson challenge. Defense counsel persisted, however, and argued:
First of all, I’ve been a trial attorney as long as he has, trying as many cases as he has and I didn’t detect any type of attitude from Ms. Sidney. Secondly, he said she remained silent during his questioning during the death qualification. He didn’t ask her a direct question. Numerous jurors remained silent during his death question because he didn’t ask them direct questions. Ms. Beeson. He didn’t ask Ms. Uhlmansiek questions although he did strike her. Ms. Linn, who is a white female, she remained totally silent. I’m the only one who talked to her at all other than Mr. Copper asking her what municipality she lived in, but he did not strike her. So numerous jurors and the record will reflect that, remained silent during Mr. Waldemer’s questioning. Once again today when he asked her about her occupation I did not detect any kind of animosity on her part. I think the clothing reasons are clearly pretextural [sic], I think that there is a case where there was a juror struck on the basis of looking like what the prosecutor called a ‘due debt.’ And the Court found that to be pretextural [sic] and sent it back. That occurred in the City of St. Louis, but I don’t have the name of the case. With regard to her being a postal worker, Mr. Waldemer has mentioned that they’re at the bottom of the employment rung. I think a lot of postal workers make more money, because they’re federal employees, than a lot of people who come in here for jury duty. He said he struck Ms. Dillard because she was a *870postal worker. She also indicated she knew the victim in this case, Florence Honickman. And to be perfectly honest, I would think that the state might have concerns that she wouldn’t like Mrs. Honickman based on Mrs. Honickman’s demeanor and based on comments that Mr. Waldemer made about Mrs. Honick-man. So that could have very well been part of the reason for striking Ms. Dillard, other than her being a postal employee. So I feel that his reasons were pretextural [sic].
Id. at 16-18.
In a decision shorn of findings articulating any reasoned basis, the trial court overruled the Batson challenge. The following morning, Smulls’s attorney renewed the Batson challenge and the following colloquy occurred:
MS. KRAFT: Judge, I believe I stated on the record yesterday when I made my record that Ms. Sidney was the only black juror remaining out of the 30. THE COURT: You made that statement.
MS. KRAFT: Okay.
THE COURT: You see, I have a problem. I don’t know what it is to be black. I don’t know what constitutes black. And I never, in this Court, no matter what any appellate court may say, I never take judicial notice that anybody is black or that only one person or four persons or eight persons are black. That to me is something that I don’t think this Court is wise enough or any other appellate court is wise enough unless there is direct evidence as to who is black and who is white and who is orange and who is purple. I do not under any circumstances in this division ever take judicial notice of the number of people who are black. And I believe that’s counsel’s responsibility to prove who is black and who isn’t or who is a minority and who isn’t. There were some dark complexioned people on this jury. I don’t know if that makes them black or white. As I said, I don’t know what constitutes black. Years ago they used to say one drop of blood constitutes black. I don’t know what black means. Can somebody enlighten me of what black is? I don’t know; I think of them as people. I listened to the responses of Ms. Sidney. I watched her attitude very briefly as it may have been, and I’m not going to sit here and say to you that Ms. Sidney is not black. But I’m not going to make a judgment as to whether anybody else on the panel was, so in any event, I’m merely telling you that for the record. I’d rather not even discuss it on the record. But, in any event, I’m going to deny your motion for a mistrial on the basis stated. Are we ready to proceed?
Id. at 26-28.
On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court, without commenting on the absence of findings to support the trial court’s decision, upheld the denial of the Batson challenge. The court concluded the trial court did not clearly err because “[rjeasons such as these have been found to support a ruling that a trial court did not clearly err[,]” and “[e]ven assuming the prosecutor’s reasons for challenging mail sorters and postal workers are non-sensical, this does not establish the reasons are inherently pretextual.” State v. Smulls, 935 S.W.2d 9, 15 (Mo.1996) (en banc).
II
As the majority correctly notes, our review of Smulls’s claims is governed by AEDPA, and we may not grant a writ of habeas corpus with respect to any issue decided by the Missouri courts unless the decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the *871Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). The majority also correctly identifies Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 5.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), as clearly established federal precedent. I part company, however, with the majority’s application of these salutary precepts to the issues of this case.
The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race. Batson, 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712. To prove purposeful discrimination in the use of a peremptory challenge, a defendant must first make a prima facie case of racial discrimination. If such a showing is made, the state must suggest a race-neutral explanation for the strike and if a race-neutral explanation is offered, the trial court must decide whether the party objecting to the strike has proved purposeful discrimination. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995); United States v. Jones, 245 F.3d 990, 992 (8th Cir.2001).
Smulls argues the prosecutor’s stated reasons were pretextual because they were contrary to or unsupported by the record. He claims the prosecutor’s characterization of Sidney as a “mail sorter” or “mail carrier” was erroneous because the record shows Sidney was a member of management at Monsanto, and, among other duties, supervised employees responsible for sorting and distributing mail. Additionally, Smulls argues the prosecutor’s claim that a previous jury had been hung by a postal employee is factually inaccurate.6
Both the trial court and the Missouri Supreme Court failed to analyze these factual disputes on the record. The district court took note of the lack of findings but concluded the prosecutor was aware of Sidney’s actual job description and, even though he was mistaken about his earlier trial, believed a postal worker voted against conviction. Therefore, the district court concluded the Missouri courts’ application of federal law was not unreasonable.
Smulls also argues the district court’s rejection of his Batson challenge was erroneous because the trial court failed to make any factual findings to support the prosecutor’s claim Sidney “glared” at him or acted “irritated” by the questioning. According to Smulls, defense counsel disputed the prosecutor’s alleged observations and the trial court should have resolved the dispute on the record. Smulls also argues the side-by-side comparison of Sidney and venireperson Dillard was improper because Dillard knew the victim and was, therefore, not similarly situated.
Once again, neither the trial court nor the Missouri Supreme Court chose to address these arguments on the record. The district court noted the lack of findings but rejected the arguments because defense counsel’s disagreement “neither confirms nor denies that Ms. Sidney had a poor demeanor.” The district court concluded the barren record did not make the trial court’s decision or the Missouri Supreme Court’s affirmance unreasonable. I disagree.
I am dismayed at the perfunctory and cavalier manner in which the trial court dismissed Smulls’s Batson challenge. “In deciding whether the defendant has made the requisite [prima facie] showing, the trial court should consider all relevant circumstances.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712. We have emphasized the need to “make[ ] detailed findings on the record in support of a ruling on a peremptory challenge under Batson.” Moran v. Clarke, 443 F.3d 646, 653 (8th Cir.2006) (citing U.S. Xpress Enter., Inc., v. J.B. *872Hunt Transp., Inc., 320 F.3d 809, 814 (8th Cir.2003)). Such a view is entirely consistent with clearly established Supreme Court precedent stressing the importance for trial courts to carefully consider all evidence bearing on the issue. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Further, as to the issue of discriminatory intent, “Bat-son ... requires the judge to assess the plausibility of [the prosecutor’s] reason in light of all evidence with a bearing on it.” Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 2331-32, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005) (citation omitted). “In deciding if the defendant has carried his burden of persuasion, a court must undertake a ‘sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.’ ” Batson, 476 U.S. at 93, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (quoting Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977)). The majority’s invocation of AEDPA’s deferential standard of review does not alter the fact that nothing of the sort occurred in this instance. Because the trial record is bereft of reasoning, any meaningful review by our court is impossible.
Any doubt about the impact the failure to make findings has on our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review is confirmed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Snyder v. Louisiana, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1203, 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008). There the Court refused to “presume that the trial judge credited the prosecutor’s [asserted reasons for striking a juror]” because no record findings had been made. Id. at 1209. The majority’s attempt to blunt the effect of Snyder is singularly unpersuasive. It argues Snyder is distinguishable because the prosecutor offered two reasons for striking a juror and the record did not reveal whether the trial court credited one, the other, or a combination of both. The distinction is irrelevant. Snyder teaches that an appellate court “cannot presume” a trial court correctly analyzed a Batson challenge when it is impossible to divine the court’s reasoning. Id. In Snyder, the prosecutor offered two reasons for striking the juror — nervousness and pressing time constraints, id. at 1208, and the trial court rejected a Batson challenge without explanation, id. at 1209. The Supreme Court concluded it was unable to conduct any meaningful review of the first proffered reason (nervousness) because “the record does not show that the trial judge actually made a determination concerning [the juror’s] demeanor.” Id. at 1209. Unlike today’s decision, the Court recognized that a paucity of findings by the trial court made judicial review impossible, and refused to engage in the perverse reasoning enshrined by today’s decision which concludes an unreasoned, unexplained denial implies a deliberative process.
The majority attempts to avoid Snyder by arguing it need not decide in this case what reasons the trial court credited because all would justify the challenge. This argument ignores Snyder. The issue is not whether the proffered reason, if verified, would withstand a Batson challenge. Indeed, had the Court been able to confirm the juror in Snyder appeared nervous, the trial court’s denial of the challenge would likely have been affirmed. Rather, the inquiry is whether the trial court found the proffered reasons had a basis in fact. If an otherwise adequate reason has no factual basis, the strike is pretextual. The record here reflects the competing views offered by the prosecution and defense but is of no assistance in determining which was factually correct. In adhering to these principles, I refuse to ignore the lack of findings and the trial court’s stubborn refusal to apply Batson.
Finally, the majority brushes aside Snyder by finding it was not clearly established law at the time of the state courts’ *873decisions. Nothing in Snyder, however, suggests the Court intended to establish new standards for reviewing Batson challenges. Thus, Snyder changed nothing; it simply recognizes the unremarkable principle that an appellate court cannot review a decision or findings a trial court never made.
Here the record conclusively establishes the trial court refused to make findings and engage in the evaluative process anticipated by Batson and its progeny. Initially, the court denied the challenge without affording defense counsel an opportunity to rebut the racially-neutral reasons offered by the prosecutor. Later, in unequivocal language, the court refused to consider the racial composition of the jury pool, issuing a direct challenge to any appellate court possessed of the temerity to suggest it should. Finally, the dearth of reasoning reflected in the trial court’s decision leaves nothing to review. See Hardcastle v. Horn, 368 F.3d 246, 259 (3d Cir. 2004) (‘[Sjome engagement with the evidence considered is necessary as part of step three of the Batson inquiry,’ and requires ‘more than a terse, abrupt comment that the prosecutor has satisfied Batson. ’) (quoting Riley v. Taylor, 277 F.3d 261, 290-91 (3d Cir.2001) (en banc)); Barnes v. Anderson, 202 F.3d 150, 156 (2d Cir.1999) (ordering a new trial where the trial court denied a Batson challenge “without explicit adjudication of the credibility of the nonmovant’s race-neutral explanations for the challenged strikes.”); and United States v. Hill, 146 F.3d 337, 342 (6th Cir.1998) (remanding where “the record ... indicates nothing about the district court’s thought processes ... apart from its abrupt conclusion ... that the prosecutor’s asserted justification outweighed [the defendant’s] showing under the totality of the circumstances.”). For these reasons, I would reverse the district court’s denial of habeas relief.
My disapproval of today’s decision is not based solely upon what the trial court failed to say on the record. Rather, I would also reverse because the trial court expressly refused to recognize and assess all relevant circumstances as required by clearly established federal law. When defense counsel attempted to establish for the record Sidney was the only black juror remaining in the jury pool, the trial court inexplicably refused to acknowledge or consider the racial composition of the jury pool. “I don’t know what constitutes black. And I never, in this Court, no matter what any appellate court may say, I never take judicial notice that anyone is black or that only one person or four persons or eight persons are black.” Instead of considering the composition of the jury pool, as mandated by Supreme Court precedent, the trial court imposed upon the defendant an unprecedented, if not impossible, burden:
That to me is something that I don’t think this Court is wise enough or any other appellate court is wise enough unless there is direct evidence as to who is black and who is white and who is orange and who is purple. I do not under any circumstances in this division ever take judicial notice of the number of people who are black. And I believe that’s counsel’s responsibility to prove who is black and who isn’t or who is a minority and who isn’t.
Appellant’s App. at 27.
I fail to comprehend how a trial court,faced with a Batson challenge, can purport to fulfill its obligation to properly evaluate the merits of such a claim without taking the race of prospective jurors into account. Further, a trial court may not avoid Batson by demanding the proponent of the challenge meet a burden of proof which finds no support in Supreme Court precedent. The trial court stated, *874in unmistakable language, it would not analyze Smulls’s Batson challenge and dared any appellate court to hold it accountable. Remarkably, the majority shrinks from the challenge, concluding the trial court’s clearly expressed contempt for constitutional principles proves it found the prosecutor’s reasons credible. The evidence is unshakable — the trial court abdicated its responsibilities under Batson and I find no comfort in the majority’s difficult reasoning. I will not align myself with a view that brushes aside the repugnant treatment of Smulls’s Batson challenge and excuses the trial court’s conduct and comments as justified, albeit “ill-advised,” expressions of “frustration.”
The trial court’s actions and comments are indicative of a deeper problem. The trial court’s initial failure to afford defense counsel an opportunity to respond to the prosecutor’s racially-neutral reasons, the complete lack of findings, and the trial court’s refusal to consider the race of prospective jurors absent “direct evidence,” combine to demonstrate the court was openly hostile towards the Batson challenge and unwilling to engage in the sensitive inquiry into circumstantial and direct evidence as required. See U.S. Xpress Enter., Inc., 320 F.3d at 814 n. 4 (noting under certain circumstances the “lack of specificity in a trial court record to demonstrate compliance with the Batson analysis may require remand for further findings.”). Thus, our court is not constrained by the normal presumption of correctness in favor of the trial court. Nor must we overlook the Missouri Supreme Court’s resort to judicial alchemy in transforming the trial court’s refusal to consider the claim into a reasoned basis for affirming. Today’s decision incorrectly affirms the state’s privation of Smulls’s constitutional rights and renders illusory the already tenuous protections afforded under Bat-son.
Ill
Because the trial court refused to consider all relevant circumstances as required by clearly established federal law, its unreasoned and unexplained decision cannot be accorded the normal presumption of correctness. Moreover, the Missouri Supreme Court’s conclusion the trial court acted properly was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal precedent. To hold otherwise renders our role a sham and I refuse to accept an interpretation of appellate review which relegates us to the role of a legal rubber stamp. Therefore, I respectfully dissent and would reverse the district court’s judgment denying Smulls’s petition for habeas corpus.

. The state concedes the prosecutor’s claim was inaccurate.