Lark v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 645 F.3d 596

Lark was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Pennsylvania; relevant Batson claims arise from voir dire in 1985 where defense objected to striking Black jurors
The trial court refused to preserve a race-based juror-record but Lark’s counsel voiced concerns that the prosecutor struck all Black jurors
Post-conviction petitions were filed; the PCRA court denied relief, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed timeliness and the McMahon tape and Baldus study-based claims
Lark pursued federal habeas relief after state proceedings; the district court granted a conditional writ based on Batson, remanded for third-step Batson analysis
The Third Circuit reversed, vacating the writ and remanding for a full Batson third-step analysis; issues include procedural default, evidentiary hearing standards, and AEDPA review
The opinion discusses the Batson three-step framework, the timing and quality of trial objections, and the propriety of handling faded memories in post-trial proceedings

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Batson objection was timely and preserved	Lark raised a timely Batson objection at trial	Commonwealth contends objection was not timely or properly raised	Objection timely and preserved; sufficient under Batson framework
Whether Lark procedurally defaulted Batson claim	PCRA time-bar was not an adequate independent ground due to relaxed waiver	State argues default applied	Not a default; PCRA timing not independent/adequate ground in 1996 under Bronshtein/Morris
Whether a district court may grant evidentiary relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)	District Court properly exercised discretion to hold evidentiary hearing	State argues failure to develop state record bars hearing	Court should conduct evidentiary hearing; however, merits to be addressed de novo on remand
Whether AEDPA deferential review applies to Batson claim decided on merits by state courts	State courts did not adjudicate merits on pattern of strikes; AEDPA de novo review applies	Merits review limited by AEDPA	De novo review for Batson merits; if state court merits not adjudicated, AEDPA not apply at that stage
Whether the trial court should have reached Batson Step 3 on remand	Step 2 inadequate due to memory gaps; Step 3 needed	Step 2 sufficient; no need for Step 3	District Court erred by stopping at Step 2; remand to conduct Step 3 for discriminatory intent

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibits racial discrimination in jury selection)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1995) (burden-shifting; race-neutral explanations need not be persuasive at Step 2)
Johnson v. Love, 40 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 1994) (Step 2 adequacy; burden of persuasion remains with objector)
Harrison v. Ryan, 909 F.2d 84 (3d Cir. 1990) (retroactivity and need for relief when discrimination shown at Step 2)
Wilson v. Beard, 426 F.3d 653 (3d Cir. 2005) (addressing faded memory and step-two production in Batson)