Herbert Lee Simon Sr v. Debbie Asuncion, 2:17-cv-03361

Background

Petitioner Herbert Lee Simon, Sr., an African-American California state prisoner, was convicted by a jury of attempted witness dissuasion and corporal injury to a cohabitant; sentenced to 19 years 4 months. Appeals and state habeas review were denied.
During jury selection the prosecutor used peremptory strikes on two African‑American prospective jurors (Prospective Jurors No. 9 and No. 5); defense made Batson/Wheeler objections alleging racial discrimination.
Trial court found a prima facie case for both strikes but accepted the prosecutor’s race‑neutral justifications and denied the Batson motions; California Court of Appeal affirmed in an unpublished decision.
Petitioner sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing the trial court (and appellate court) erred by failing to find purposeful discrimination and by not performing comparative juror analysis.
The federal district court reviewed the Batson third‑step credibility determinations under AEDPA deference and, after conducting comparative analysis where appropriate, held the prosecutor’s reasons (prior false accusation/sleepiness for Juror No. 9; monosyllabic answers/body language/strong personality for Juror No. 5) were race‑neutral and not shown to be pretextual.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor’s peremptory strikes violated Batson by targeting African‑American jurors	Strikes were racially motivated; state courts failed to undertake comparative juror analysis and erred at Batson step three	Prosecutor gave race‑neutral, demeanor‑ and experience‑based reasons for strikes; trial court saw demeanor and accepted reasons	Denied — court found prosecutor’s reasons race‑neutral and not shown to be pretextual; AEDPA deference upheld state courts’ conclusions
Whether comparative juror analysis was required here	California Court of Appeal unreasonably failed to compare struck minorities to seated jurors	Comparative analysis is not mandated by Batson; appellate review may use it but trial court need not perform it	Denied — comparative analysis is a review tool but not required; where necessary federal court performed it and found no pretext
Whether the trial court improperly credited subjective/‘hunch’ reasons	Subjective reasons (rapport, body language) are insufficient and mask discrimination	Peremptory reasons may be subjective or demeanor‑based; trial judge is best positioned to assess credibility	Denied — demeanors and subjective impressions are legitimate race‑neutral bases; trial court’s credibility determination entitled to deference
Whether state court rulings were unreasonable under AEDPA	State courts unreasonably determined facts and misapplied Batson, warranting habeas relief	State courts reasonably applied Supreme Court Batson framework and were supported by record; federal habeas relief barred under § 2254(d)	Denied — state court findings were not objectively unreasonable; habeas petition dismissed with prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (constitutional prohibition on race‑based peremptory challenges)
Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (comparative juror analysis and use of all relevant circumstances at Batson step three)
Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (credibility of prosecutor’s reasons is a factual determination accorded deference)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (Batson three‑step framework and role of demeanor)
Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (prima facie showing at Batson step one)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference to state‑court adjudications)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (deferential review standards under AEDPA)