Hector Ayala v. Robert Wong
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18321
9th Cir.2012Background
- Ayala, a state prisoner, challenged his death sentence after the prosecution struck all minority (Black/Hispanic) jurors during voir dire using peremptory challenges.
- The trial court conducted ex parte Batson steps two and three hearings, with defense counsel excluded, and accepted the prosecution’s race-neutral explanations without defense comment.
- A large portion of juror questionnaires was lost, hindering Ayala’s ability to pursue a robust Batson defense on appeal.
- California appellate courts upheld the conviction and declined to reverse on Batson grounds, finding Harmless error and noting the lost record did not prejudice the defense.
- Ayala filed federal habeas corpus petition under AEDPA; district court denied relief but issued a COA on Batson claims and Vienna Convention issues.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the Batson-exclusion procedure and the lost questionnaires prejudiced Ayala under Brecht, and remanded with instructions to grant the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel’s exclusion from Batson steps two and three violated the Constitution | Ayala | Ayala | Yes; exclusion violated due process and Sixth Amendment interests |
| Whether the loss of jury questionnaires prejudiced Ayala and affected appellate review | Ayala | Ayala | Yes; loss aggravated prejudice and aided Batson error review |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (establishes three-step Batson framework for racial discrimination in jury selection)
- Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1992) (equal protection in courtroom discrimination context)
- United States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254 (9th Cir. 1987) (rule permitting defense presence at Batson steps where no confidential info required)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (importance of comparative juror analysis in Batson review)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1993) (substantial and injurious effect standard for habeas prejudice review)
- Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2007) (AEDPA and Brecht interplay; Brecht subsumes Chapman harmlessness on collateral review)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (new constitutional rules not retroactive on collateral review)
- Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1994) (teague analysis framework for retroactivity of new rules)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2006) (deference standards in AEDPA review of state-court decisions)