Alonzo Johnson v. Claude Finn
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24304
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Johnson and Thompson, California state prisoners, challenged the use of peremptory strikes to exclude black jurors in their joint trial for murder-related offenses.
- A magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing and found the prosecutor discriminated on the basis of race in striking one black juror (W.J.).
- The district court rejected the magistrate’s credibility findings and denied habeas relief without a new evidentiary hearing.
- The district court’s rejection relied on credibility findings about the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons for striking W.J., which the magistrate found were pretextual.
- The court held that no AEDPA deference applied to the state court’s decision and conducted de novo review on the Batson claim.
- The panel vacated and remanded, requiring the district court to either accept the magistrate’s credibility finding or conduct a new evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEDPA deference applies to the state court’s Batson ruling. | Johnson/Thompson argue no AEDPA deference. | State argues AEDPA deference should apply. | AEDPA deference does not apply to the state court's Batson ruling. |
| Whether Johnson and Thompson made a prima facie showing of racial discrimination at Batson step one. | Three black jurors were struck; disparate treatment supports prima facie. | Prosecutor offered race-neutral explanations; no prima facie shown. | Yes, prima facie showing established at step one. |
| Whether the district court erred by not observing the prosecutor’s demeanor at Batson step three. | Live demeanor evidence is essential to credibility; audiotaped or written record is insufficient. | District court could assess credibility based on record and explanations. | District court erred by not conducting a new evidentiary hearing to observe demeanor. |
| Whether the magistrate judge’s credibility determination should be reviewed de novo or remanded for new fact-finding. | Magistrate’s credibility should control if credible. | District court should review credibility anew. | Remand to adopt magistrate’s credibility or conduct new evidentiary hearing. |
| What remedy follows when the district court rejects a magistrate’s credibility finding without a live hearing. | Vacate district ruling and remand for in-person credibility assessment. | Possibly affirm or reassess without remand. | Vacate and remand for new evidentiary hearing or adoption of magistrate’s credibility finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ridgway, 300 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002) (due-process requires district court to hear firsthand when rejecting magistrate credibility findings)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (establishes three-step Batson framework for racial discrimination in peremptory strikes)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (demeanor of attorney is best evidence; live testimony aids credibility)
- Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (limits on district-court credibility determinations; live observation valued)
- Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991) (voir dire and credibility considerations discussed; de novo review possible)
- Williams v. Runnels, 432 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2006) (precludes treating 'strong likelihood' and 'reasonable inference' as interchangeable for AEDPA deference)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (disparities in peremptory challenges indicate possible discrimination)
- Tolbert v. Page, 182 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 1999) (batson burden-shifting framework explained (en banc))
- Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 1999) (avoid reliance on magistrate credibility without live testimony; remand standard)
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005) (precludes California's 'strong likelihood' standard as congruent with Batson)
- Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989) (voir dire requires assessing demeanor and attitudes)
- You v. United States, 382 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2004) (credibility determinations rest largely on demeanor)
- Mejia v. United States, 69 F.3d 309 (9th Cir. 1995) (live testimony aids credibility assessment)
- Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989) (see above (duplicate entry kept for completeness))