103 F. Supp. 3d 1091
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Petitioner (African American) was convicted in 1984 of murder, attempted murder, and related offenses and sentenced to death; jury contained 11 white jurors and 1 Hispanic-surnamed juror and no African Americans.
- During voir dire the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove every African American called to the box (8 of 8) and had marked many more African American venire members as unacceptable in his notes.
- Trial counsel made no Wheeler (state-law Batson analog) objection at trial; counsel later was disbarred for unrelated professional misconduct but gave no explanation for the decision not to object.
- Petitioner filed federal habeas alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object under Wheeler; state courts dismissed the claim on procedural grounds, so the federal court reviewed the subclaim de novo.
- The court found ample contemporaneous evidence of discriminatory intent or strong circumstantial indicia (100% strikes of African Americans, prosecutor’s race-focused notes and strike list, differential questioning, favorable defense ratings for struck African Americans, and similar nonstruck whites with comparable views) and concluded counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudicial.
- Court granted habeas as to the ineffective-assistance subclaim, vacated conviction and death sentence, and ordered release or a new trial within 120 days unless California law provides otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to prosecutor’s race-based peremptory strikes under Wheeler | Counsel’s failure to raise a Wheeler motion was objectively unreasonable given (a) prosecutor struck 8/8 African Americans, (b) prosecutor’s notes and strike list, (c) defense had ranked some struck African Americans favorably, and (d) differential questioning — thus reasonable probability a Wheeler motion would have succeeded | Respondent argued claim procedurally defaulted and, on the merits, disputed that a Wheeler prima facie case or prejudice was shown (and emphasized contemporaneous standards and comparators such as presence of minority jurors in some cases) | Court: Not procedurally defaulted; counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial — reasonable probability a Wheeler motion would have succeeded; habeas granted as to that subclaim, conviction and death sentence vacated |
| Whether the state procedural bar (Dixon) precludes federal habeas review | Petitioner: state Dixon bar as applied was not an adequate, independent ground for federal habeas at the time it was applied | Respondent: invoked Dixon to bar review | Court: Dixon bar as applied then was interwoven with federal law and inadequate; federal review permitted |
| Standard of review for the claim | Petitioner: because state court dismissed on procedural grounds, federal court should review the ineffective-assistance subclaim de novo | Respondent: AEDPA deference might apply | Court: De novo review applies to the claim’s merits (but state factual findings get AEDPA §2254(e)(1) deference) |
| Remedy and prejudice standard | Petitioner: Wheeler error is prejudicial per se; showing reasonable probability of prevailing on Wheeler suffices to satisfy Strickland prejudice prong | Respondent: disputed strength of prima facie showing and comparative analysis | Court: Wheeler error is structural; petitioner showed reasonable probability of success on Wheeler; prejudice established; relief ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (Cal. 1978) (state rule forbidding peremptory strikes based solely on group membership and setting out prima facie and burden-shifting framework)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (constitutional prohibition on race-based peremptory strikes; later Supreme Court rule — cited for context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Carrera v. Ayers, 699 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (framework for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims based on failure to raise Wheeler/Batson objections)
- Williams v. Woodford, 396 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2005) (dissent analyzing counsel’s duty to object to discriminatory strikes and concluding counsel should have objected in similar circumstances)
- Doe v. Ayers, 782 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015) (counsel’s failure to raise Wheeler objection can be deficient but comparative factual strength matters for prejudice)
- People v. Hall, 35 Cal.3d 161 (Cal. 1983) (reversal under Wheeler; discusses disparate questioning and comparative juror analysis)
- People v. Allen, 23 Cal.3d 286 (Cal. 1979) (Wheeler reversal where prosecution struck all black venirepersons)
- People v. Fuller, 136 Cal.App.3d 403 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (Wheeler prima facie finding where prosecution removed all black prospective jurors)
- Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1986) (racial discrimination in jury selection undermines confidence in trial and the integrity of the tribunal)