Alfredrick Love v. Matthew Cate
449 F. App'x 570
9th Cir.2011Background
- On remand from Love I, the district court granted Love a conditional writ of habeas corpus.
- Love alleged that in a state battery trial, the sole Black venire member was struck per Batson due to race.
- Batson requires three-step analysis: prima facie showing, race-neutral explanations, and determination of purposeful discrimination.
- Love I remanded for an evidentiary hearing to allow a factual showing that the prosecutor had a non-racial reason, with third-step determination on the record.
- On remand, the district court found the strike race-based, based on the prosecutor’s pretext and failure to question the Black venire member, plus a comparative juror analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Batson strike was racially motivated (step three). | Love argues the strike was race-based and the district court correctly applied Batson step three. | Cate contends the state court findings were not clearly erroneous and no discrimination occurred. | Yes; the district court’s determination that the strike was racially motivated was upheld. |
| Whether failure to articulate race-neutral reasons and conduct comparative analysis affects Batson review. | Love I required a comparative juror analysis and robust consideration of non-racial factors. | Cate argues the analysis was properly limited and the state court findings suffice. | The district court’s comparative analysis and rejection of the non-racial explanations were supported. |
| Whether AEDPA deference applies to the district court’s factual findings on remand. | Love contends AEDPA deference should not override the clear error in the factual record. | Cate argues the state court factual findings deserve deference under AEDPA. | Even under AEDPA deference, the state court’s findings were unreasonable and the district court did not clearly err. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (establishes three-step Batson framework for peremptory strikes)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (supports comparative juror analysis and discriminatory inference)
- Kesser v. Cambra, 465 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc; emphasizes evaluating Batson steps and discrimination)
- United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 422 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2005) (prosecutor’s selective questioning as potential prejudice evidence)
- United States v. Collins, 551 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2009) (inference from lack of probing jurors supports discrimination finding)
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (U.S. 2005) (Batson framework requires state court reasons to be stated and evaluated)
- Ali v. Hickman, 584 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2009) (addresses AEDPA deference and Batson on remand post Love I)
- Cook v. LaMarque, 593 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2010) (post-Love I Batson considerations and failure to articulate reasons)
- Felkner v. Jackson, 131 S. Ct. 1305 (2011) (per curiam; emphasizes deference to state court credibility findings)
- Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (limits evidence considered on federal habeas review under § 2254(d)(1))