Robert McDaniels v. Richard Kirkland
760 F.3d 933
9th Cir.2014Background
- McDaniels and Jenkins, African-American co-defendants, were convicted of first-degree murder in Alameda County; they challenged the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes of African-American venire members under Batson v. Kentucky.
- Trial judge limited voir dire (30 minutes) relying on juror questionnaires; prosecutor struck seven of ten African-American potential jurors and the court found a prima facie Batson violation but ultimately accepted the prosecutor’s race-neutral justifications.
- The California Court of Appeal (CCA) affirmed; the California Supreme Court summarily affirmed. Petitioners filed separate federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- In federal proceedings, the State supplemented the record with the first day voir dire and some juror questionnaires; many questionnaires and the first day transcript were not in the CCA record because petitioners’ counsel did not move to augment the record on appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether (1) the CCA unreasonably failed to sua sponte augment the record to permit comparative juror analysis and (2) the CCA unreasonably credited the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons, applying AEDPA deference under § 2254(d)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CCA unreasonably failed to sua sponte augment the record (voir dire/questionnaires) so comparative juror analysis could be performed | McDaniels/Jenkins: Batson and Supreme Court precedents require comparative juror analysis; CCA should have augmented record sua sponte, so state-court deference is inappropriate | State/CCA: California law places burden on appellant to move to augment the record; CCA was not required to sua sponte supplement | Held: CCA did not unreasonably apply Batson; petitioner’s failure to seek augmentation under California law precluded deeming the CCA’s decision unreasonable or removing AEDPA deference |
| Whether the habeas court may consider voir dire/questionnaires produced for the first time in federal habeas when reviewing under § 2254(d)(2)/(e)(1) | Petitioners: supplemental materials should inform Batson review and show pretext | Respondent: review under § 2254(d)(2) is limited to evidence before the last reasoned state court opinion; petitioners failed to show due diligence required under § 2254(e)(2) for new evidence | Held: Cannot consider the missing first-day transcript and destroyed questionnaires under § 2254(d)(2); § 2254(e)(1)/(e)(2) relief also not available because district court made no finding of petitioner diligence, so materials were excluded from AEDPA review |
| Whether the CCA’s acceptance of the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons for striking specific jurors (Andrews, Reeves, Hilton, Woods) was an unreasonable factual determination | Petitioners: prosecutor’s reasons were pretextual (demeanor descriptions, disparate questioning, numerical disparity) and comparative analysis would show discrimination | State: prosecutor gave legitimate demeanor- and experience-based reasons; trial judge saw demeanor and credibility; AEDPA deference applies | Held: Under doubly deferential AEDPA standard, the CCA’s credibility determinations were not objectively unreasonable; trial-court observations and limited record support upholding the strikes and denying relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (establishes three-step framework for evaluating race-based peremptory strikes)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (endorses comparative juror analysis as useful evidence of pretext in Batson inquiry)
- Kesser v. Cambra, 465 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2006) (discusses comparative juror analysis and Batson framework)
- Cook v. LaMarque, 593 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2010) (applies AEDPA deference despite state courts not performing comparative juror analysis)
- Boyd v. Newland, 467 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2006) (remanded where state court denied access to voir dire and thus impeded comparative analysis)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (court cannot assume which of multiple proffered reasons a trial court relied upon; emphasizes importance of explicit credibility findings)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006) (explains deference to trial-court credibility findings under AEDPA)