Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187

Background

In 1989 Hector Ayala (a Hispanic defendant) was convicted of three murders and sentenced to death after a months-long capital jury selection in San Diego; the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove seven Black or Hispanic venirepersons.
Ayala raised Batson objections; the trial judge required the prosecutor to explain the strikes but permitted several explanations to be given ex parte (outside the presence of defense counsel) to avoid disclosing trial strategy.
The California Supreme Court held that excluding defense counsel from the in‑camera Batson explanations violated state law but found any federal constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (Chapman), and affirmed the conviction.
After state habeas and a federal district court denial, a divided Ninth Circuit panel granted federal habeas relief under Brecht, finding the ex parte procedure and loss of most juror questionnaires prejudiced Ayala; rehearing en banc was denied.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, assumed arguendo a federal error, but reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding any error was harmless under Brecht and AEDPA deference principles; the Court emphasized deference to trial‑court credibility findings and the state courts' benign handling of the Batson issue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ayala)	Defendant's Argument (California)	Held
Ex parte Batson hearing: whether excluding defense counsel from prosecutor's in‑camera explanations violated federal rights and prejudiced Ayala	Exclusion denied meaningful adversarial testing, prevented comparative juror analysis, and likely affected the trial court and appellate review	Even assuming error, the absence of defense counsel was harmless because the prosecutor's race‑neutral reasons were supported by voir dire and demeanor, and trial court credibility findings are entitled to deference	Assumed error for argument's sake but held any error harmless on habeas review under Brecht with AEDPA deference to state‑court Chapman ruling; reversed Ninth Circuit
Lost juror questionnaires: whether loss deprived Ayala of ability to appeal Batson rulings	Missing questionnaires prevented full comparative analysis and appellate review of prosecutors' descriptions	Record was sufficiently developed (voir dire transcripts and questionnaires of seated jurors present); any loss was harmless	Court found no actual prejudice from lost questionnaires; harmlessness established
Standard of review: interplay among Brecht (habeas harmlessness), Chapman (direct‑appeal harmlessness), and AEDPA §2254(d)	Brecht governs habeas harmlessness but state court Chapman ruling should be fully considered; ex parte error prejudicial under Brecht	Under Fry, Brecht subsumes Chapman but AEDPA still limits federal relief; where state court adjudicated claim on the merits, federal courts must apply AEDPA deference when assessing harmlessness	Brecht applies to habeas; where state court decided harmlessness on the merits, AEDPA deference controls — federal habeas relief barred unless state decision was unreasonable
Credibility/demeanor reliance: whether trial judge's credibility findings (based on voir dire and in‑camera explanations) can stand when defense was excluded	Defense absence undermined judge's ability to test prosecutor credibility; adversarial testing matters	Trial judge was in best position to assess demeanor and credibility; appellate and habeas courts must defer absent unreasonable factual determination	Court stressed deference to trial judge and state court; rejection of Batson claims not unreasonable, so credibility findings stand

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes and sets three‑step Batson procedure)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (on direct appeal, constitutional error is harmless only if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (habeas standard: relief only if error had substantial and injurious effect; requires showing of actual prejudice)
Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) (held Brecht governs habeas harmlessness and subsumes Chapman; AEDPA still limits federal habeas relief)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (explains AEDPA deference and "fairminded jurists" standard for unreasonable state‑court decisions)
Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (importance of comparative juror analysis in Batson challenges)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (trial court must consult all circumstances bearing on racial animus; comparative analysis important)
Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006) (trial‑court credibility findings on Batson get great deference and are overturned only for clear error)
O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (1995) (explains "grave doubt" standard under Brecht for whether error had substantial and injurious effect)