610 F. App'x 433
5th Cir.2015Background
- Petitioner Warren Scott, a Louisiana inmate, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging several convictions; only his claim regarding the sexual-battery conviction remained on appeal.
- Scott argued ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to object under Batson when the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove Black venirepersons.
- The district court dismissed the ineffective-assistance claim on the merits; a certificate of appealability was granted on the Batson-related ineffective-assistance claim.
- The state habeas record showed the prosecutor articulated race-neutral reasons for each strike in the voir dire transcript, though no Batson hearing was held at trial because defense counsel did not object.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo legal issues and for clear error factual findings, applying § 2254(d)(1) deference to the state court’s denial of relief.
- The court held Scott failed to show Strickland prejudice because a Batson challenge would not have succeeded on the existing record; the lower court’s consideration of an evidentiary hearing’s evidence did not affect the analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting under Batson | Scott: counsel’s failure allowed racially discriminatory strikes, warranting relief | State: record shows race-neutral reasons for each strike; no Batson violation proven | Counsel not shown deficient in a way that caused Strickland prejudice; claim fails |
| Whether prejudice is presumed from a structural Batson error in ineffective-assistance context | Scott: cites cases where prejudice may be presumed in narrow categories | State: Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit do not presume prejudice for Batson-based Strickland claims | No presumption of prejudice; Scott must show a reasonably likely different outcome |
| Whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) | Scott: contends state decision conflicted with Supreme Court precedents | State: applied Batson/Strickland and relied on voir dire record showing race-neutral bases | Court: state habeas decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law |
| Whether the district court improperly considered new evidence from an evidentiary hearing under Pinholster | Scott: argues new evidence cannot be considered | State: magistrate noted limitation; district court did not rely on hearing evidence for merits | No error—hearing evidence was not considered in merits analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibition on race-based peremptory strikes)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (prejudice requires reasonable likelihood of different result)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (federal habeas review limited to state-court record)
- Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (racial discrimination in grand jury selection is structural error)
- Virgil v. Dretke, 446 F.3d 598 (Fifth Circuit: structural error alone does not mandate presumed prejudice in Strickland context)