Anthony Castellanos v. Larry Small
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17423
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Petitioner Anthony Castellanos (17 at time of offense) was convicted in California of second‑degree murder, assault with a firearm, and gang solicitation for shooting a 12‑year‑old witness.
- During voir dire, the prosecutor used peremptory strikes against four Hispanic venirepersons; defense made a Batson/Wheeler challenge after those strikes.
- Trial court denied the Batson motion; California Court of Appeal upheld the denial on direct appeal; California Supreme Court denied review.
- Castellanos filed a federal habeas petition; the district court denied relief after considering DMV photos and a post‑trial declaration from the prosecutor.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the state court’s rejection of the Batson claim was reasonable under AEDPA, focusing on comparative juror analysis and whether the prosecutor’s race‑neutral reasons were pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Castellanos' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the California Court of Appeal applied a pre‑Johnson Wheeler standard at Batson step one, requiring de novo review under §2254(d)(1) | Court of Appeal cited pre‑Johnson Trevino and thereby applied a heightened prima facie standard | The citation to Trevino was limited to deference language and did not impose Wheeler’s stronger burden | No; the state court decision was not “contrary to” clearly established federal law under §2254(d)(1) |
| Whether the prosecutor’s race‑neutral reasons for striking Hispanic jurors were genuine or pretextual under Batson step three | The strikes were discriminatory; prosecutor’s reasons (e.g., no children) contradicted the record and were pretext | The prosecutor offered facially race‑neutral reasons (concern about jurors understanding child witness, attention problems, gang connections) | The Ninth Circuit concluded the prosecutor’s reason for striking Venirewoman 4968 was objectively false and pretextual, so the state court made an unreasonable factual determination under §2254(d)(2) |
| Whether comparative juror evidence and other circumstantial evidence undermined the prosecutor’s credibility | Comparative analysis shows similarly situated non‑Hispanic jurors (and some Hispanic jurors) were seated despite the characteristics cited as reasons for strikes | The composition of the empaneled jury and unused strikes weigh against finding purposeful discrimination | Comparative analysis supported finding pretext for at least one strike; a single discriminatory strike requires relief, so habeas must be granted |
| Whether post‑hoc justifications (prosecutor declaration) may be considered on collateral review | Post‑trial explanations are not permitted to cure deficiencies in the trial record under Pinholster | State relied on prosecutor’s declaration and DMV photos submitted in federal proceedings | The court held post‑hoc declarations cannot cure an unreasonable state‑court factual finding; it relied on trial record and DMV photos where appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (establishing framework forbidding racially motivated peremptory strikes)
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (rejecting Wheeler’s heightened prima facie standard at Batson step one)
- Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (importance of comparative juror analysis and evaluating pretext)
- Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (further discussion of comparative analysis and credibility in Batson context)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (prosecutor’s reasons need only be facially race‑neutral at step two)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA standard for “contrary to” and unreasonable application)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (limits on considering new evidence in federal habeas review)
- Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984 (discussing review standards and comparative juror analysis on collateral review)