Black v. Workman, 682 F.3d 880

Defendant Johnny Black was convicted of first-degree murder and battery with a dangerous weapon for an assault that killed Bill Pogue and wounded Rick Lewis; the jury recommended a death sentence.
Defendant pursued state and federal postconviction relief unsuccessfully before filing a §2254 petition in federal court; the federal district court denied relief on several claims and certified issues for appeal.
During the Jan. 4–5, 1998 confrontation, Black and associates attacked Pogue and Lewis; Pogue died from stab wounds and Lewis survived; Black later fled to Texas and confessed.
Jurors Williams and Skiles were excused after expressing reservations about imposing the death penalty, and the trial court conducted voir dire with those express reservations.
Defendant pursued Batson challenges alleging racially discriminatory peremptory strikes against an African-American juror; the court upheld the trial court’s reasons as race-neutral.
The case also involved challenges to jury instructions on heat-of-passion/first-degree murder and manslaughter, disputes over ineffective assistance of counsel, and numerous prosecutorial comments during guilt and penalty phases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Batson claim—racial basis for strike	Black asserts a Batson violation based on race.	Black argues pretext from undisclosed white juror misconduct shows racial discrimination.	No Batson violation; record supports race-neutral explanations and insufficient pretext.
Voir dire regarding death penalty reservations	Williams and Skiles expressed reservations about the death penalty; dismissal violated Witherspoon.	Responses were unequivocal; trial court properly dismissed for cause; no ambiguity requiring further questions.	No error; state court reasonably applied Witherspoon principles.
Heat-of-passion instruction in first-degree murder/manslaughter	Lofton required explicit absence-of-heat-of-passion proof; omission undermines guilt determination.	Patterson limits Mullaney and Lofton; no requirement for explicit absence-of-heat-of-passion instruction.	No constitutional error; OCCA reasonably applied Lofton under current Supreme Court precedent.
Ineffective assistance of counsel at closing and investigation	Counsel failed to adequately pursue heat-of-passion defense and investigative leads.	Strategic choices and reasonable investigations supported the defense.	No Strickland violation; OCCA's reasoned decision was not unreasonable under AEDPA.

Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 F.2d 510 (1968) (death-penalty juror exclusion requires careful voir dire)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory challenges may not be race-based)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (three-step Batson framework; step three pretext review)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (AEDPA review of Batson factual determinations requires deference)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial misconduct standard for due process)
Lofton v. United States, 776 F.2d 918 (10th Cir. 1985) (heat-of-passion jury instruction considerations)
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977) (limits Mullaney; burden-proofs distinctions in heat-of-passion context)
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975) (premeditation vs. malice distinctions in homicide)
Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227 (1990) (actual innocence and procedural bar principles)