Darryl Shirley v. James Yates, 807 F.3d 1090

Darryl Shirley convicted of first-degree burglary of an unoccupied residence and second-degree robbery of a sandwich shop; no harm or weapons involved; sentenced to two consecutive 25-years-to-life terms plus four consecutive five-year enhancements.
Shirley asserted claims in habeas; district court reversed state court on Batson claim and ordered evidentiary hearing; state court rulings were reviewed de novo.
Trial venire had five Black members; two challenged peremptorily by the prosecution; Shirley’s Batson motion denied.
Evidentiary hearing focused on the prosecutor Van Stralen’s stated reasons and his general jury-selection approach; notes and transcripts were not available, complicating Step Two analysis.
Court reversed and remanded for writ grant unless retry occurs within a reasonable time; held Step Two evidence sufficient and Step Three findings deficient.]

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shirley made a prima facie Batson showing at Step One	Shirley showed substantial inference of discrimination given two of three Black veniremembers struck	State argued no prima facie case under prior Box standard	Yes; Step One inference supported by race-based striking pattern
Whether the state satisfied its Step Two burden of production	Van Stralen’s general jury-selection approach plus notes supported actual reasons	Voire dire notes were unavailable; reasons speculative	Yes; circumstantial evidence met Step Two via general-practice evidence tied to trial
Whether the district court correctly found no Step Three discrimination for R.O.	Comparative analysis showed R.O. struck for life-experience lacking	Reasons other jurors had similar traits; R.O. lacked life experience	No; district court clearly erred; substantial evidence supports discrimination for R.O.
Whether a Batson violation existed for L.L. and R.O. and remand was proper	Two Black veniremembers struck; evidence sufficient for relief	State’s reasons could be race-neutral	Yes; district court erred; reversal and remand with writ issuance
Whether state court misapplied Batson framework (Box standard) and AEDPA deferential review	Box standard improper; Step Two and Three analysis required	Box standard applicable under state law	Yes; state court decision did not comply with federal Batson framework; remand warranted

Batson v. Kentucky, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (discrimination in peremptory juror challenges)
Johnson v. California, Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (S. Ct. 2005) (prima facie Batson showing requires reasonable inference of discrimination)
Paulino I, Paulino I, 371 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2004) (prima facie and basic Batson framework guidance; contemporaneous context)
Paulino II, Paulino II, 542 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2008) (Step Two burden of production; circumstantial evidence permissible; two-tier analysis)
Turner I, Turner I, 63 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 1995) (pattern of disproportional strikes supports inference of discrimination)
Crittenden I, Crittenden I, 624 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2010) (ambiguities in Step Two; general approach evidence evaluated at Step Two/Three)
Fernandez v. Roe, Fernandez v. Roe, 286 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002) (disproportionate striking supports inference of discrimination)
United States v. Vasquez-Lopez, United States v. Vasquez-Lopez, 22 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 1994) (single discriminatory strike forbidden; pattern not required)
Miller-El I, Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (S. Ct. 2003) (contemporaneous vs. post hoc justification, importance of voir dire)
Miller-El II, Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (S. Ct. 2005) (implicit bias considerations; Batson framework nuances)