Vernon Madison v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
761 F.3d 1240
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Vernon Madison, a Black defendant, was tried three times for killing a white police officer; his third conviction and death sentence followed a jury 8–4 life recommendation and judicial override.
- This Court previously held the state court applied an incorrect, Swain-based prima facie standard and remanded for Batson step-two/three review; the case returned to federal district court for an evidentiary hearing.
- At the federal hearing the State produced prosecutor John Cherry (testified and authenticated contemporaneous voir dire notes) and juror Geraldine Adams; defense produced witness testimony about a local defense witness’s community prominence.
- Prosecutor’s notes listed race-neutral reasons for striking six of 13 eligible Black jurors (e.g., occupation/mental-health connections, knowing defendant or defense witnesses, expressed reluctance to follow law or strong death-penalty views); Cherry denied race was a factor.
- The District Court found the State met Batson step two (race-neutral reasons) and, after assessing credibility and the totality of the circumstances, found no purposeful discrimination or pretext at step three.
- On appeal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, reviewing the district court’s Batson step-three factual finding for clear error and concluding the findings were plausible in light of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s strikes violated Batson (racially discriminatory jury selection) | Madison argued record supported pretext: six of 13 Black jurors struck; prosecutor failed to question some struck jurors; prosecutor refused to give reasons at trial; Mobile DAO history of Batson violations | State argued its proffered reasons were facially race-neutral and supported by voir dire notes and Cherry’s testimony (occupation, acquaintance with witnesses, death-penalty views) | Court held Batson step two satisfied by State; step three (purposeful discrimination) was a factual finding for district court and not clearly erroneous — affirming denial of habeas relief |
| Standard of review for district court’s step-three finding after federal evidentiary hearing | Madison urged de novo review because the federal hearing occurred years after trial and the district judge was not the original trial judge | State urged deferential clear-error review for factual credibility determinations | Court held clear-error review applies to district court’s factual finding and gave due deference to its credibility assessments |
| Whether a federal evidentiary hearing was proper after this Court’s §2254(d) determination | Madison argued hearing was necessary to develop facts bearing on Batson step three after this Court found state court unreasonably applied Batson at step one | State relied on AEDPA limits (Pinholster) | Court held hearing was proper: this Court’s prior §2254(d) ruling removed AEDPA deference and an (e)(2)-type hearing was required to resolve step-two/three issues |
| Whether prosecutor’s stated reasons were pretextual under Miller‑El comparisons | Madison argued similar white jurors were not struck and the prosecutor’s failure to follow up showed pretext | State argued meaningful differences existed between struck Black jurors and white comparators and the reasons fit accepted trial strategy | Court held district court did not clearly err in finding the proffered reasons credible and not pretextual |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits peremptory challenges based on race)
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (sets out Batson three-step framework)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (treats discriminatory intent as factual finding entitled to deference)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (pretext analysis and comparative juror review under Batson)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (factors for assessing credibility of prosecutor’s explanations)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (standard for federal evidentiary hearings on habeas claims)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (clearly erroneous standard and deference to factfinder’s credibility determinations)
- Cochran v. Herring, 43 F.3d 1404 (11th Cir. precedent applying deferential review to district court Batson findings after federal hearing)