Bobby Smith v. Burl Cain, Warden
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2873
5th Cir.2013Background
- Smith, a Louisiana inmate, was convicted in 2001 of armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
- He alleged the jury was tainted by racial prejudice due to the prosecutor’s use of peremptory strikes against black panelists.
- The district court held the state courts erred in Batson analysis and granted an evidentiary hearing on the merits.
- After the hearing, the district court denied relief, and Smith obtained a COA limited to comparative juror analysis per Miller-El.
- The Supreme Court’s Pinholster decision raised questions about the admissibility of new evidence in §2254(d) cases; the court proceeded nonetheless.
- The Fifth Circuit ultimately affirmed, holding no Batson violation or pretext was proven and the evidentiary hearing was permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pinholster bars the evidentiary hearing | Pinholster prevents new evidence if state record shows violation. | Pinholster does not bar here because state court record showed Batson misapplication and hearing was proper under §2254(e)(2). | No, hearing appropriate; Pinholster inapplicable here. |
| Whether the district court properly exercised discretion to conduct an evidentiary hearing under §2254(e)(2) | The state court failed to develop Batson record; thus hearing necessary to develop claim. | The court correctly exercised discretion; the evidence supports the race-neutral explanations and no prejudice shown. | District court did not abuse discretion; hearing permitted. |
| Whether Smith proved purposeful discrimination under Batson’s third step after the evidentiary record | Comparative analysis shows Norman and Williams were unfairly questioned and struck due to race. | Record shows race-neutral justifications; no comparable jurors treated differently; no pretext established. | No persuasive showing of purposeful discrimination; district court’s findings affirmed. |
| Whether the state court’s Batson analysis was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law | State court misapplied Batson at prima facie stage; warranted federal review and relief. | State court’s analysis was reasonable; Payne-like comparison shows no discriminatory intent. | State court’s Batson application deemed unreasonable under §2254(d)(1) but cured by federal evidentiary record; ultimately no relief granted. |
| What is the proper remedy given the Batson record | Remand for further Batson analysis or relief due to misapplication. | Evidentiary record shows no discrimination; relief not warranted. | Affirmed district court’s denial of habeas relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (guides comparative juror analysis for Batson challenges)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (limits §2254(d)(1) review to record before state court)
- Blue v. Thaler, 665 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2011) (limits Pinholster to Atkins context; allows hearing when state court misapplies law)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (no death penalty for mentally retarded individuals; cited in Atkins context)
- Reed v. Quarterman, 555 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 2009) (emphasizes comparative analysis in Batson step three)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (pretext standard for race-neutral explanations)