Taylor v. Sisto
449 F. App'x 665
9th Cir.2011Background
- Taylor challenged Batson claim; state court assumed prima facie discriminatory purpose and focused on prosecutor’s credibility.
- Appellate court affirmed trial court crediting prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations for striking three jurors; AEDPA deference applied.
- Majority held trial court’s credibility determination was not objectively unreasonable; Batson claim rejected.
- Taylor challenged jury instructions on “large box at the doorway” and related due process issues; appellate court rejected these as not violating precedent.
- Dissent argued three initial reasons for striking Ms. D were pretextual; would grant petition; contended state court’s conclusions were unreasonable on the facts.
- Concurrence emphasized AEDPA deference limits and deferred to state court’s interpretation on a harmless instruction; noted non-precedential disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson claim under AEDPA deference | Taylor argues the prosecutor’s reasons for striking Ms. D were pretextual | State court crediting the reasons was reasonable and not clearly erroneous | Batson claim rejected; credibility choice presumed reasonable |
| Impact of ‘large box’ instruction on fair trial | Instruction violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right | Instruction did not violate precedent | No due process violation; instruction not error |
| Willful disregard for safety instruction and new felony language | Language creates mandatory presumption or unfair prejudice | Language defines a new but permissible standard under Supreme Court precedent | Not contrary to Supreme Court precedent |
| Sua sponte instruction on which traffic violations incur points | Omission infected due process | Violations did result in points; no due process violation | No due process violation; claim rejected |
| AEDPA deference to trial-court credibility in Batson | State court erred in crediting prosecutor’s explanations | We give doubly deferential review and uphold | State court’s credibility determination sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations must be credible)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (cannot supply own rational basis to exclude juror; must rely on prosecutor’s explanations)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (U.S. 2008) (deference to trial court credibility in Batson cases)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2006) (doubly deferential review for state-court credibility findings)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (AEDPA deference and standard of review for state-court determinations)
- Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (U.S. 2009) (limits on evaluating general standards against specific trial conduct)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (due process standard for instructional error)
- Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1973) (constitutional issues related to jury instructions and prejudice)