810 F.3d 94
1st Cir.2016Background
- Darryl Scott, an African-American defendant, was convicted in Massachusetts Superior Court of first-degree murder and related offenses after juries were empaneled in 2006.
- During jury selection, the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges against several jurors of color; the trial judge sustained one Soares objection (seated Juror No. 5-16), permitted one challenge (Juror No. 10-10, African-American woman), and overruled/withdrew another challenge (Juror No. 11-10, Latina).
- Defense counsel objected at trial under Commonwealth v. Soares (state analog to Batson), asserting a pattern of strikes against people of color but offered limited factual support beyond counting challenged jurors.
- On appeal the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) concluded the trial judge did not find a prima facie Batson violation and that the record supported that conclusion.
- Scott sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming the SJC unreasonably applied Batson; the district court denied relief and the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SJC unreasonably applied Batson in failing to find a prima facie case from the prosecutor's peremptory challenges | Scott: The trial judge suggested a race-neutral reason and failed to require the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral justification for striking Juror No. 10-10, so Batson was misapplied | Gelb: The judge permissibly concluded no prima facie showing was made; prosecutor denied a pattern and judge reasonably relied on record (including seated jurors of color) | Affirmed: SJC’s ruling was not an unreasonable application of Batson under AEDPA; Scott failed to carry burden to show discriminatory intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race-based peremptory challenges and sets three-part test)
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005) (prima facie Batson showings may rely on varied evidence)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (consider totality of circumstances in discrimination inquiries)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (review all circumstances bearing on racial animus in Batson review)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA unreasonable application standard requires more than error; must be beyond fairminded disagreement)