United States v. Barnette, 644 F.3d 192

Barnette was sentenced to death for carjacking resulting in death and related offenses; prior trials and appeals occurred.
Supreme Court vacated and remanded after Miller-El v. Dretke to reconsider Batson claims.
District court conducted a remand Batson hearing with in camera review of juror questionnaires and prosecutors’ notes.
Results included findings that race-neutral reasons for strikes were plausible and no purposeful discrimination was established.
Barnette challenged discovery rulings, access to questionnaires, and the prosecutors’ notes; district court limited the scope.
Fourth Circuit affirmed district court’s Batson rulings, while Keenan partly concurred, addressing race-notes disclosure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Remand Batson procedure proper?	Barnette contends remand conduct denied full adversarial process.	United States argues court acted within discretion.	Remand procedures were within district court's discretion.
Were race-neutral explanations pretextual?	Barnette argues pretext shown by strikes of African-Americans.	Government's explanations were plausible and supported by record.	No clear error; explanations not pretextual.
Did comparative juror analysis show discrimination?	Barnette asserts Edwards, Stanford similar to struck African-Americans.	No substantial similarity; differing demeanor and responses justify strikes.	Comparative analysis did not establish discrimination.
Access to questionnaires and notes on remand?	Barnette sought clean copies and notes; sought cross-examination.	District court limited disclosure for work product and practicality.	District court abused discretion on clean copies but harmless.
Race/Gender notations on cover sheets admissible evidence?	Notations indicate discriminatory intent; Miller-El guidance applied.	Notations were legitimate identifiers and not evidence of bias.	Notations found plausible and not pretextual; harmless to outcome.

Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (Supreme Court 2005) (comparative juror analysis essential to Batson third step)
Garrison v. United States, 849 F.2d 103 (4th Cir. 1988) (compelling reasons for ex parte review; adversarial process preferred)
Tindle v. United States, 860 F.2d 125 (4th Cir. 1988) (ex parte inspection permissible with compelling reasons; not always reversible)
Thaler v. Haynes, U.S. _, 130 S. Ct. 1171 (Supreme Court 2010) (demeanor-based explanations may be examined; rejection of per se rule)
Brown v. Dixon, 891 F.2d 490 (4th Cir. 1989) (death-penalty reservations permissible as race-neutral reasons)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court 2008) (all relevant circumstances bearing on racial animus must be considered)
Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court 2006) (three-step Batson framework applied in habeas context)
Keel v. French, 162 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 1998) (three-part prima facie Batson framework)