699 F.3d 1104 | 9th Cir. | 2012
Lead Opinion
OPINION
Petitioner-Appellant Constantino Carr-era was found guilty in 1983 of first-degree murder of two people during a robbery. Carrera is Hispanic. The victims were white. During voir dire, the prosecutor peremptorily challenged 75 percent of the Hispanie-surnamed venirepersons. By contrast, he peremptorily challenged only 26 percent of the white, non-Hispanic-surnamed venirepersons. At the time of Carrera’s trial, People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (Cal.1978), which held the use of peremptory challenges to strike venirepersons based solely on race to be a violation of the California Constitution, had been the law in California for five years. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), had not yet been decided. Carrera’s counsel did not object under Wheeler to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges.
Carrera contends on habeas that his counsel’s failure to make a Wheeler objection was ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We affirm the district court’s denial of relief, holding that Carrera has not satisfied the prejudice prong of Strickland.
I. Background
Carrera and another person were convicted in separate trials in Kern County
The California Supreme Court affirmed Carrera’s conviction and death sentence on direct appeal. People v. Carrera, 49 Cal.3d 291, 261 Cal.Rptr. 348, 777 P.2d 121 (1989). The court held that there had been multiple errors at trial, including an instructional error relating to Carrera’s intent to kill, but that the errors were all harmless. See id. at 309-11, 261 Cal.Rptr. 348, 777 P.2d 121. Carrera filed his federal habeas petition in 1990, before the effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). See Robinson v. Schriro, 595 F.3d 1086, 1099 (9th Cir.2010).
The federal district court set aside Carr-era’s death sentence. The court found repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct during trial: The prosecutor failed to correct testimony he knew was perjurious; he concealed inducements to two testifying jailhouse snitches; and he presented flatly inconsistent factual narratives at the separate trials of Carrera and his co-perpetrator. The court concluded that an intent-to-kill instructional error was not harmless because its application was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct.
The district court subsequently denied Carrera’s guilt-phase claims. One of those was a claim that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance in failing to make a Wheeler objection. Carrera appealed.
II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. “We review the district court’s denial of [Carr-era’s] habeas petition de novo, and the district court’s findings of fact for clear error.” Robinson, 595 F.3d at 1099. Because Carrera filed his federal habeas petition before the effective date of the AED-PA, we consider it under the pre-AEDPA standard of review. Id. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims present mixed questions of law and fact. Id. “Under preAEDPA law, we owe no deference to the state court’s resolution of questions of law or mixed questions of law and fact.” Id. “We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error.” Id.
III. Discussion
A. Voir Dire
Prior to voir dire, when the racial and ethnic composition of the venire panel was still unknown, Carrera’s counsel moved to quash the venire on the ground that there were insufficient procedures in place to ensure a panel that reflected the ethnic and racial diversity of Kern County. See People v. Buford, 132 Cal.App.3d 288, 182 Cal.Rptr. 904, 905 (1982) (addressing a jury challenge “on the ground that blacks were underrepresented on that jury and on other juries in [the] County as a result of systematic exclusion in the jury-selection process” (footnote omitted)). When the venire panel was chosen, it turned out that between eleven and fourteen members of the panel had Hispanic surnames, and at least four members were black. Carrera’s counsel withdrew her motion to quash.
During voir dire, the prosecutor and Carrera’s defense counsel both asked questions directed to ethnicity. The pros
If you were chosen as a juror in this case and you were the only one that had a Spanish surname sitting on the panel, would you feel that you would be under an undue hardship, so to speak, for want of a better word, feeling you would have to vote just as everyone else did simply because they might claim because you have got a Spanish surname maybe you were being more lenient or that sort of thing?
The prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to 75 percent of the venirepersons with Hispanic surnames. Of eight prospective jurors with Hispanic surnames, the State exercised peremptory challenges to six; the other two were seated on the jury. An additional person with a Hispanic surname was seated as an alternate. By contrast, the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges against 26 percent (eleven of forty-one) white, non-Hispanic-surnamed prospective jurors. Five years earlier, the California Supreme Court had held that “the use of peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors on the sole ground of group bias violates the right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16, of the California Constitution.” Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 276-77, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. Carrera’s counsel made no objection under Wheeler to the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to Hispaniesurnamed venirepersons.
B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim
Carrera contends that his trial counsel’s failure to make a Wheeler objection was ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland, a defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice. Because we conclude that Carrera has not carried his burden of proof to show prejudice, we need not decide whether he has shown deficient performance.
“[A]ny deficiencies in counsel’s performance must be prejudicial to the defense in order to constitute ineffective assistance under the Constitution.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052. “The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (emphasis added). The petitioner has “the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.” Id. at 696, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
The first step in a Wheeler objection was to show a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. “If a party believes his opponent is using his peremptory challenges to strike jurors on the ground of group bias alone, he must raise the point in timely fashion and make a prima facie case of such discrimination to the satisfaction of the court.” Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 280, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. A prima facie case under Wheeler had three elements:
First ... [the party] should make as complete a record of the circumstances as is feasible. Second, he must establish that the persons excluded are members of a cognizable group within the meaning of the representative cross-section rule. Third, from all the circumstances*1108 of the case he must show a strong likelihood that such persons are being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias.
Id. (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). “If the court finds that a prima facie case has been made, the burden shifts to the other party to show if he can that the peremptory challenges in question were not predicated on group bias alone.” Id. at 281, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (footnote omitted).
Because we are evaluating the likelihood of success of Carrera’s hypothetical Wheeler objection in the context of an ineffective assistance claim, he has the burden to show under Strickland a reasonable probability he would have prevailed on a Wheeler claim. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that he has not carried his burden under Strickland.
1. Prejudice at Trial
The record shows that the prosecutor exercised peremptory strikes against six venirepersons with Hispanic surnames. Carrera concedes that one of the six — his counsel’s mail carrier — was properly struck. The record suggests obvious nondiscriminatory reasons for four of the five remaining strikes. One prospective juror, Petra Celedón, appeared bitter about being called to jury service. A second prospective juror, Alice Hernandez, worked at the juvenile detention facility where Carr-era’s co-defendant was held. A third prospective juror, Maria Carrillo, had a son who had a criminal record. A fourth prospective juror, Mary Garcia, told the court at the beginning of her voir dire that she could not impose the death penalty, though she later said that she could do so.
Only one of the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges was problematic. Prospective juror Lawrence Martinez unequivocally expressed his ability to impose the death penalty if, in his judgment, the circumstances warranted it. When asked if he had “family ... involved in any type of charges or a trial,” Martinez responded that a friend had had a drunk driving charge but mentioned no family members. He had no connection to the victims, defendants, or witnesses.
The record reveals no obvious non-discriminatory reason to challenge Martinez. But Wheeler required a stronger showing to establish a prima facie case. Not only were five of the six challenges to Hispanicsurnamed venirepersons relatively unproblematic; further, two Hispanic-surnamed persons were seated on the jury, and one Hispanic-surnamed person was seated as an alternate. Two California Court of Appeal cases, decided shortly after Carrera’s trial, highlight how difficult it would have been for Carrera to establish a prima facie case in these circumstances.
In People v. Boyd, 167 Cal.App.3d 36, 212 Cal.Rptr. 873, 880-82 (1985), a Court of Appeal held that, despite the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges to three black venirepersons, no prima facie case had been established under Wheeler because two black jurors were seated on the jury. In People v. Davis, 189 Cal.App.3d 1177, 234 Cal.Rptr. 859, 866 (1987), the prosecutor peremptorily challenged six black venirepersons, but allowed three black jurors to be seated. The court wrote:
*1108 [T]he presence of two and then three members of the cognizable group in the jury box at all times afforded the defendant a representative cross-section of the community and afforded equal protection to all, the defendant, the prospective jurors excused and the community at large. There was no prima facie case of exclusion for group bias demonstrated at any time.
Carrera can also demonstrate prejudice by showing that a Wheeler objection would have succeeded on direct appeal. His counsel’s failure to make a Wheeler objection at trial was a procedural default under state law that prevented him from making a Wheeler challenge on appeal. See Carrera, 49 Cal.3d at 331 n. 29, 261 Cal.Rptr. 348, 777 P.2d 121 (Cal.1989) (noting “[t]he requirement that a contemporaneous motion be made to object to a prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors of one racial group”); Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 284 n. 32, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (“[P]eremptories [were] not ‘open to examination’ unless and until on a timely motion the trial court is satisfied there is a prima facie showing that jurors are being challenged on the sole ground of group bias.”).
If Carrera’s counsel had made a Wheeler objection at trial, that objection would have been preserved for appellate review. In some circumstances, the failure to make an objection results in an undeveloped record, such that it is difficult or impossible to know what rulings would have resulted on appeal had a proper record been developed. Here, however, there is no such difficulty, for the record at trial was sufficiently developed to permit a meaningful evaluation of a prima facie case under Wheeler.
We must determine whether Carrera was prejudiced on appeal based on the law as it existed when his conviction became final on direct appeal. His conviction became final on April 23, 1990, when the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. See Carrera v. California, 495 U.S. 911, 110 S.Ct. 1938, 109 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).
While Carrera’s case was pending on appeal, there were two significant changes in the law. First, in 1987 the California Supreme Court overruled Boyd and Davis. The court held in Snow that the presence of group members on a jury does not, by itself, prevent a defendant from making a prima facie case under Wheeler. It wrote, “[W]e disapprove language in People v. Davis suggesting that the presence of two or three Blacks in the jury box following voir dire precludes the trial court from finding a prima facie case of exclusion.” Snow, 44 Cal.3d at 225-26, 242 Cal.Rptr. 477, 746 P.2d 452 (citation omitted). After Snow, California courts were required to review all the circumstances surrounding voir dire to determine whether an objecting party had established a prima facie case of discrimination under Wheeler.
In People v. Allen, 212 Cal.App.3d 306, 260 Cal.Rptr. 463, 469 (1989), a Court of Appeal noted that “the exclusion of disproportionate numbers of minority jurors per se” does not automatically establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Wheeler. “[T]he law is clear that a prima facie case of group bias requiring prosecutorial explanation arises only if from all the circumstances of the case the trial court finds a strong likelihood that the persons were being challenged because of their group association rather than specific bias.” Id. (emphasis in original). Relevant circumstances included the extent the prosecutor questioned the jurors struck on peremptory challenges. People v. Trevino, 39 Cal.3d 667, 688, 217 Cal.Rptr. 652, 704 P.2d 719 (1985) (“The district attorney exercised peremptory challenges to remove six Hispanics from the jury after asking them few if any questions on voir dire.”), disapproved on other grounds by
Second, in 1986 the United States Supreme Court held in Batson v. Kentucky that racially discriminatory peremptory challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Batson applied retroactively to all cases then pending on direct review. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 322-23, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). A prima facie case under Wheeler required the objecting party to “show a strong likelihood that such persons are being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias.” Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 280, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (emphasis added). A prima facie case under Batson requires only that the objecting party show “that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 93-94, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (emphasis added).
In 2003, the California Supreme Court concluded that the Wheeler and Batson standards for making out a prima facie case were the same, and that Wheeler’s “strong likelihood of discrimination” continued to be the governing standard. See People v. Johnson, 30 Cal.4th 1302, 1313-14, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 71 P.3d 270 (2003). Two years later, the United States Supreme Court disagreed with the California Supreme Court, holding that the Wheeler and Batson standards are different, and that the less demanding Batson standard controls. Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005).
We must evaluate Carrera’s ineffective assistance claim under the law the California Supreme Court would have applied on direct appeal in 1990. When Carrera’s appeal was decided, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson was still fifteen years in the future. We therefore apply Wheeler’s “strong likelihood” standard, rather than Batson’s “raise an inference” standard, in determining whether Carrera would have been able to establish a prima facie case in the California Supreme Court on appeal.
A California appellate court deciding a Wheeler objection in 1990 would have examined the record not merely for evidence of group bias but also for evidence of specific bias against individual venirepersons. See, e.g., Turner, 42 Cal.3d at 719, 230 Cal.Rptr. 656, 726 P.2d 102; Allen, 260 Cal.Rptr. at 468-69. Carrera argues that the prosecutor’s six peremptory strikes of Hispanic-surnamed venirepersons would have been enough to establish a prima facie case of specific bias under Wheeler. We have already summarized the evidence with respect to those strikes. We con-
Carrera argues further that a prima facie case of group bias can be shown “because the prosecutor questioned minority jurors differently than white jurors.... ” The prosecutor engaged in far more than a “desultory voir dire” with the struck jurors. Cf. Allen, 23 Cal.3d at 294, 152 Cal.Rptr. 454, 590 P.2d 30. It is true that the prosecutor asked Hispanic-surnamed venirepersons whether the fact that the defendant was “of Spanish descent” would affect their deliberations, and that he did not ask potential white jurors similar ethnicity-based questions. However, asking questions about potential bias is the purpose of voir dire. Indeed, as we noted above, Carrera’s counsel also asked ethnicity-based questions of the Hispanic-surnamed venirepersons.
Were we reviewing the prosecutor’s actions in a different procedural posture or under current law, we might well reach a different conclusion. But evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the record before us, under Wheeler as it was interpreted in 1990, we cannot say Carrera has carried his burden of proof to show that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes. Carrera has not shown a “reasonable probability” that on direct review, he would have succeeded under Wheeler in showing “a strong likelihood” that challenges to Hispanic-surnamed venirepersons were made “because of their group association.”
Conclusion
Because Carrera is unable to establish that his trial counsel’s failure to make a Wheeler motion was prejudicial, he has not established an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland. We therefore affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
. We address in this opinion only Carrera’s Wheeler-based Strickland claim. We address his other claims in an unpublished memorandum filed simultaneously with this opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting:
A fair trial requires the selection of a fair jury. That didn’t happen in Constantino Carrera’s case because his defense counsel was incompetent.
Michael Vedrasco, the prosecutor in defendant Carrera’s case, struck seventy-five percent of potential Hispanic jurors, but only twenty-six percent of potential white jurors. Carrera’s defense attorney, Donnalee Huffman,
Both the United States Constitution and the California Constitution guarantee a defendant in a criminal case a fair and impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Cal. Const., art. I, § 16. In People v. Wheeler, the California Supreme Court established that racial bias in jury selection violates
The majority opinion only cites Wheeler’s “strong likelihood” standard and ignores its, “reasonable inference” standard. See Maj. op. at 1110. Under California’s evidence laws, however, both standards mean a preponderance of the evidence. Cal. Evid.Code § 115 (“Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of proof requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.”). While the majority opinion distinguishes the Wheeler standard from Batson’s “inference” standard, the California courts at the time of Carrera’s 1983 trial applied Wheeler’s “reasonable inference” standard even though the Batson decision was years in the future. See People v. Fuller, 136 Cal.App.3d 403, 186 Cal.Rptr. 283, 296 (1982) (“[A] fair reading of Wheeler requires only that the court find a reasonable inference of group bias once an appropriate foundation is laid.”).
Furthermore, the California Supreme Court would have been required to apply the Batson standard to Carrera’s 1989 appeal. The Supreme Court held in Batson v. Kentucky that a defendant creates a prima facie case of unconstitutional jury selection by raising an “inference of purposeful discrimination.” Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 94, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Because Carrera’s case was pending on direct review when the Supreme Court decided Batson in 1986, Batson governed Carrera’s case on appeal to the California Supreme Court. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 322-23, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). The standard for showing a constitutional violation in Carrera’s case cannot be stricter than what the Supreme Court mandated in Batson v. Kentucky. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958) (“the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution”).
The Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685-86, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). If Carrera had received effective assistance, there is a “reasonable probability” that he would have succeeded in his Wheeler claim. See id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. And even if a Wheeler objection failed to persuade the trial judge, the objection would have preserved the Wheeler motion so that Carrera could have raised it on his direct appeal. Thus, defense counsel’s incompetence deprived Carrera of his opportunity to raise a Wheeler motion before the state trial court and, because this was a death penalty case, on direct appeal to the California Supreme Court. See Cal. R. Ct. 8.600 (“If a judgment imposes a sentence of death, an appeal by the defendant is automatically taken to the [California] Supreme Court.”).
As a result of defense counsel’s incompetence and the prejudice Carrera suffered, I would grant his request for Habeas relief.
I. Carrera’s Attorney Fell Below an Objective Standard of Performance in Failing To Present a Wheeler Motion
There are a number of reasons why defense counsel Huffman may have failed to present a Wheeler motion. But none of
Or perhaps Huffman failed to make a Wheeler motion because she was simply— and woefully — unprepared. . Huffman rushed to trial without an investigator because her investigator had been her husband — until the time he tried to kill her. She had no money to hire a new one because she faced bankruptcy and was saddled with more than $100,000 in debt. So, she cut corners. Unprepared and distracted, Huffman may not have been aware that the prosecutor’s disproportionate strikes of Hispanic jurors warranted an objection.
We -will never know why Huffman sat silently at counsel table while the prosecutor struck six out of the eight prospective Hispanic jurors, despite the fact that Wheeler had been on the law books for five years. When asked in a declaration prepared for Carrera’s direct appeal why she made no Wheeler motion, Huffman said: “I don’t know why at this time. No strategic reason.”
But any competent attorney would have objected to the prosecutor’s highly disproportionate peremptory challenges of Hispanic jurors. When this case was on appeal to the California Supreme Court, a defense attorney, Guyton Jinkerson, who in the past had qualified as an expert on ineffective assistance said as much in evaluating Huffman’s performance. Jinkerson declared in 1987 that Huffman’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing professional norms.” He added that but for Huffman’s “unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Indeed, I suggest that under the performance prong of Strickland v. Washington, Huffman’s failure to raise a Wheeler motion clearly “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Her silence during these proceedings was not a “strateg[ic] choice ... within the range of professionally reasonable judgments.” Id. at 699, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Rather, it was ineffective performance. The majority does not contest this point. Maj. op. at 1107-08. Instead, the majority opinion denies Carrera’s claim based on Strickland’s prejudice prong, finding that Carrera’s Wheeler motion would not have succeeded, had Huffman raised it.
II. Carrera Suffered Prejudice as a Result of his Attorney’s Failure to Make a Wheeler Motion
To demonstrate Strickland prejudice, Carrera must show that there is a “reasonable probability” that the outcome would have been different but for his attorney’s error. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. We’ve interpreted “reasonable probability” to mean “one sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, but ... less than the preponderance more-likely-than-not standard.” Lambright v. Schriro, 490 F.3d 1103, 1121 (9th Cir.2007) (internal quotations omitted).
The majority holds that Carrera cannot show a reasonable probability that he would have succeeded in challenging the striking of six of the eight Hispanic jurors. See Maj. op. at 1108. But Carr-era’s evidence of unconstitutional racial bias matched Wheeler’s examples of evidence that demonstrates prejudicial jury
Since no Wheeler challenge was actually made, it is hard to know what explanation the prosecutor would have provided for his strikes of Hispanic jurors. Nonetheless, the majority offers a few “obvious” explanations from its reading of the record. See Maj. op. at 1108. Upon closer scrutiny, however, these explanations are neither obvious nor reasonable.
A. The Record Does Not Show Legitimate, Non-Prejudicial Reasons for Striking the Hispanic Jurors
1.Prospective Juror Lawrence Martinez
The majority concedes that the peremptory strike of Lawrence Martinez “was problematic.” See Maj. op. at 1108. Martinez “unequivocally expressed his ability to impose the death penalty,” had no family members with any type of criminal history, and had no connection to any of the parties or witnesses in Carrera’s case. Maj. op. at 1108. Striking Martinez was improper. As California Justice Stanley Mosk emphasized two years before he presided over Carrera’s appeal, “[t]he exercise of one improper challenge is, of course, sufficient to establish a [Wheeler ] violation.” People v. Ledesma, 43 Cal.3d 171, 233 Cal.Rptr. 404, 729 P.2d 839, 881 (1987) (Mosk, J., concurring). Had defense counsel Huffman objected to prosecutor Vedrasco’s improper strike of Martinez, that objection alone could have established a Wheeler violation.
2.Prospective Juror Petra Celedón
The majority finds an “obvious” reason for striking Petra Celedón. According to the majority, “prospective juror, Petra Celedón, appeared bitter about being called to jury service.” Maj. op. at 1108. But as Celedón herself clarified, she was not bitter about jury service. A special education teacher, Celedón was sorry she was absent from school on the day she reported for jury duty in particular. As she explained: “this is a special day for [students] and some of them have been very anxious because I am not going to be there today.” Prospective jurors were told that the trial would not start until the following week, after the end of the school year. Celedón told the prosecutor that after school finished for the year, she would have no problem serving as a fair juror. But while Celedon’s school let out for the summer well before the start of trial, the prosecutor nonetheless struck her, and the majority sees no problem.
3.Prospective Juror Alice Hernandez
The majority finds an “obvious non-discriminatory” reason for the prosecutor’s strike of Alice Hernandez: she “worked at the juvenile detention facility where Carr-era’s co-defendant was held.” Maj. op. at 1108. Under questioning by Huffman, Hernandez stated that she worked in housekeeping, did not know the co-defendant, and had never heard of the case. Furthermore, the prosecutor never asked Hernandez any questions about her employment or whether her employment had any impact on her ability to serve as an impartial juror. This lack of follow-up questioning raises a red flag under Green v. LaMarque, 532 F.3d 1028, 1033 (9th Cir.2008), which explained that if a prosecutor challenges a juror for a factor on which he asked no questions, that lack of further questioning tends to establish that
4. Prospective Juror Maria Carrillo
In the case of Maria Carrillo, the majority speculates that the prosecutor struck her because she “had a son who had a criminal record.” Maj. op. at 1108. Again, this explanation is less than satisfying in light of this case’s record. As a teenager, Carrillo’s son was arrested once for stealing. The arrest occurred fifteen years before Carrera’s trial. When the prosecutor asked Carrillo whether she had any bad feelings toward the court or the police, she answered no. The majority’s justification is even less convincing because the prosecutor did not exercise peremptory strikes against two white jurors even though their sons had more serious criminal records. Those records involved convictions for theft and drug possession, and even prison time.
The majority’s speculation, had it been offered by the prosecutor, would have fallen under the Supreme Court’s definition of pretext. See Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 241, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005) (“If a prosecutor’s proffered reason for striking a [minority] panelist applies just as well to an otherwise-similar [non-minority] who is permitted to serve, that is evidence tending to prove purposeful discrimination”); see also Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 483-84, 128 S.Ct. 1203, 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008). This court found pretext where a prosecutor claimed that he discharged a black juror because her relative had a criminal history while he seated white jurors whose relatives had equivalent criminal histories. Green, 532 F.3d at 1033. The majority seeks to justify the prosecutor’s exercise of a peremptory strike against Carrillo stating reasons this court has rejected when offered by a prosecutor. I cannot go along with that.
5. Prospective Juror Mary Garcia
The majority justifies the strike of Mary Garcia because, the majority insists, Garcia “told the court at the beginning of her voir dire that she could not impose the death penalty, though she later said she could do so.” Maj. op. at 1108. As the majority opinion concedes, Garcia said that she could impose the death penalty and that she would, in appropriate circumstances. Asked by the court if she could “think of a case where the crime for instance is so vicious that the death penalty should be imposed,” Garcia said “yeah.” Asked whether she could vote for the death penalty in such a case, she said “yes.” Asked once more by the court whether she opposed the death penalty, Garcia gave her final answer: “no.” But, Thomas Yale, a white juror, also expressed reservations about the death penalty. Nevertheless, the prosecutor did not exercise a peremptory strike against Yale, and he served as a juror.
In short, the record shows one peremptory strike against a Hispanic juror that even the majority opinion concedes to be “problematic” and four strikes of Hispanic jurors where there is no plausible explanation other than racial prejudice. This record cried out for Carrera’s counsel, Huffman, to make a Wheeler objection. When Carrera’s case was on appeal to the California Supreme Court, prosecutor Vedrasco filed an affidavit that he “could have come up with specific reasons justifying each of [his] challenges.” That statement is unsupported by the record.
B. The Fact that Two Hispanic Jurors Were Seated Does Not Undermine a Wheeler Claim.
In attempting to demonstrate that Carr-era cannot show a “reasonable probability” of succeeding on his Wheeler claim, the majority concludes that the Wheeler motion would have likely failed under the law at the time because two Hispanic jurors made it onto the jury. Maj. op. at 1108— 09. To support this claim, the majority relies on a pair of California appellate court cases, People v. Boyd, 167 Cal.App.3d 36, 212 Cal.Rptr. 873, 880-82 (1985) and People v. Davis, 189 Cal.App.3d 1177, 234 Cal.Rptr. 859, 866 (1987). But those cases were not on the books at the time of Carrera’s 1983 trial. And in People v. Snow, the California Supreme Court overruled both cases before Carrera’s appeal, so they would never have governed Carrera’s Wheeler motion. See People v. Snow, 44 Cal.3d 216, 242 Cal.Rptr. 477, 746 P.2d 452, 457 (1987) (“we disapprove language in People v. Davis ... suggesting that the presence of two or three Blacks in the jury box following voir dire precludes the trial court from finding a prima facie case of exclusion.”).
People v. Snow explained that “the fact that the prosecutor passed or accepted a jury containing two Black persons [does not] end our [Wheeler ] inquiry, for to so hold would provide an easy means of justifying a pattern of unlawful discrimination which stops only slightly short of total exclusion.” Id. at 456-57 (internal quotations omitted). Just as in Carrera’s case, the prosecutor in Snow struck six out of eight minority jurors. Id. at 457. The defense attorney in Snow objected to those disproportionate strikes despite the prosecutor’s acceptance of two African-American jurors. In Snow, the California Supreme Court held that the defense attorney had successfully established a prima facie case for a Wheeler motion, and thus reversed the conviction. Id. at 457-58.
Unlike the defense attorney in Snow, Carrera’s defense counsel did not object to the disproportionate strikes of minority jurors. Had she done so, the California Supreme Court would have been guided by the decision it made three years earlier in Snow, and it likely would have found that the two Hispanic people on Carrera’s jury did not negate the other discriminatory peremptory juror strikes.
III. Conclusion
The Supreme Court has long held that a “fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955). Carrera did not receive a fair trial because the prosecutor purposefully excluded Hispanic jurors, and Carr-era’s attorney did nothing to challenge him. The majority does not dispute that Carrera’s attorney erred, but it somehow finds that Carrera’s claim would not have had a “reasonable probability” of succeed
. Huffman used her married name, Mendez, during Carrera's trial.