Robert McDaniels v. Richard Kirkland
813 F.3d 770
9th Cir.2015Background
- Robert McDaniels and Keelon Jenkins were convicted of murder in California state court after the prosecution used peremptory strikes that removed seven of ten African-American venire members; defendants objected under Wheeler (California Batson-equivalent).
- At trial the judge found a prima facie Batson/Wheeler violation, heard the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations, then rejected the Batson/Wheeler challenges and made a brief credibility finding in favor of the prosecution.
- On direct appeal the California Court of Appeal affirmed; the court noted comparative juror evidence is considered on appeal only if presented to the trial court and observed defendants had not placed the full voir dire record (first-day transcript and juror questionnaires) before it.
- Defendants later filed federal habeas petitions; the district courts had before them the full state-trial-court record (including juror questionnaires and day-one voir dire transcript) and denied relief; defendants appealed.
- A Ninth Circuit three-judge panel initially refused to consider trial-court-only materials under AEDPA in light of Cullen v. Pinholster; the court granted rehearing en banc to resolve whether federal habeas courts may consider state-trial-court evidence not presented to the state appellate court.
- The en banc court held federal habeas courts may consider the entire state-court record (including evidence presented to the trial court but not to the state appellate court) when adjudicating claims under § 2254, and remanded to the three-judge panel to apply § 2254(d)(2) in light of the full record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal habeas review under AEDPA may consider state-trial-court evidence not presented to the state appellate court | McDaniels/Jenkins: federal courts may and should consider the entire state-court record (trial and appellate) when evaluating Batson claims | State: Pinholster limits AEDPA review to the record before the state appellate court | Held: Federal habeas courts may consider the entire existing state-court record, including evidence presented to the state trial court but not to the state appellate court (Jamerson reaffirmed) |
| Whether California Court of Appeal’s failure to sua sponte augment the record and perform comprehensive comparative juror analysis violated clearly established Supreme Court law under § 2254(d)(1) | McDaniels/Jenkins: the court should have sua sponte augmented the record and conducted comparative juror analysis; its failure was contrary to Batson/Miller-El | State: no Supreme Court precedent in 2003 required sua sponte comprehensive comparative analysis; appellate court discretion governed augmentation | Held: No; Supreme Court precedent as of 2003 did not clearly require a sua sponte comprehensive comparative juror analysis, so § 2254(d)(1) not violated |
| Whether the trial court improperly combined Batson steps two and three, and appellate court failed to correct that error | McDaniels: trial court blurred prosecutor’s burden to articulate race-neutral reasons and the court’s duty to assess discriminatory intent | State: trial court adequately addressed both steps despite terseness; defense offered little rebuttal | Held: No error; trial court articulated race-neutral reasons and made a separate (though brief) credibility finding; appellate court did not unreasonably apply Batson |
| Whether the state-court decision was an unreasonable determination of the facts under § 2254(d)(2) given the fuller record and comparative analysis | McDaniels/Jenkins: comparative juror analysis using the full trial record may show purposeful discrimination and make the state-court factual finding unreasonable | State: (implicit) factual finding should stand absent clear proof of unreasonable determination | Held: Not decided by en banc panel; remanded to original three-judge panel to perform § 2254(d)(2) review using the full state-court record and comparative analysis as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (establishes three-step framework prohibiting race-based peremptory strikes)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (Supreme Court performed comparative juror analysis and found state-court factual determination unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2))
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (limits federal habeas consideration of evidence introduced in federal evidentiary hearings; record for AEDPA review is the state-court record that existed when state decision was made)
- Jamerson v. Runnels, 713 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2013) (federal habeas courts may consider trial-court evidence not presented to state appellate court to reconstruct facts visible to the trial court)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (per curiam) (trial courts must distinguish Batson steps; court errs by combining steps two and three)
- Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (2002) (courts must give state-court decisions the benefit of the doubt under AEDPA)
- Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2014) (comparative juror analysis is often necessary to evaluate § 2254(d)(2) Batson claims)
- Kesser v. Cambra, 465 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (Miller-El clarified rather than created new Batson procedure; comparative analysis may be required when raised)