670 F.3d 938
9th Cir.2011Background
- Carrera, Hispanic, was tried in 1983 for robbery and first-degree murder of Jack and Carol Hayes and sentenced to death (death sentence later invalidated).
- During voir dire, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike six Hispanic venirepersons; two Hispanics sat on the jury and an alternate was also Hispanic; victims were White, non-Hispanic.
- Defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges; California Supreme Court affirmed Carrera’s conviction; state habeas petitions were denied without opinion.
- Federal habeas petition was filed July 31, 1990; district court denied the ineffective assistance claim on March 11, 2008; AEDPA does not apply because petition was pre-AEDPA, so pre‑AEDPA law governs.
- The issue centers on whether defense counsel’s failure to raise a Wheeler motion in response to the challenged peremptories was deficient under Strickland, and whether Batson/Wheeler standards apply for pre-1987 trials on habeas review.
- The court affirms, holding Carrera failed to overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable under Strickland and that the presence of race-neutral reasons for the challenges supports the defense counsel’s strategic choice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to raise Wheeler was deficient | Carrera | Carrera failed to show deficient performance | No; performance not deficient |
| Whether Wheeler/Batson framework applied to pre‑trial 1983 context | Carrera argues Wheeler applies and shows bias | Wheeler not applicable to pre‑Batson era on habeas | Wheeler’s framework applied but not satisfied here |
| Whether the prosecutor’s reasons were group-bias neutral | Carrera | Prosecutor had neutral reasons for challenges | Prosecutor’s reasons appear race-neutral in record; defense counsel’s failure not shown as deficient |
| Whether prejudice must be shown for structural error | Carrera (structural error, prejudice presumed) | No structural error; no prejudice established | Prejudice not presumed; no Strickland prejudice proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (established performance and prejudice prongs; strong presumption of sound strategy)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory challenges race-based discrimination violates Equal Protection)
- People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (1978) (California Wheeler rule on group-bias peremptory challenges)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (retroactivity of Batson limited on direct review)
- Quintero-Barraza, 78 F.3d 1344 (1995) (highly deferential review of counsel’s trial-branch decisions)
- Fields v. Woodford, 309 F.3d 1095 (2002) (close call on voir dire; strategy-based decision allowed)
- Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892 (2006) (court defers to counsel’s strategic voir dire)
- Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (2007) (structural error prejudice prescription in certain contexts)
- United States v. Washington, 969 F.2d 752 (1992) (affirmation of alternative grounds for decision when district court ruling omits basis)