Lemuel Carter, Jr. v. Michael Kemna Jeremiah (Jay) W. Nixon, Missouri Attorney General
255 F.3d 589
8th Cir.
2001
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 Oli- goal tion the BGEPA. an adult bald conservation knowingly taking charge exemption argued ver has one-man body possessing the knowingly and eagle made, however, nothing there is should be Oliver entered eagle. immature bald of an with situa- peculiar special so or Oliver’s the reserving plea guilty, a condition There exception. warrants tion which was sentenced to two appeal. to He right prevent similarly to situ- safeguards are no $5,000 restitution. years and probation asserting ated from the same individuals the member of Rose- is an enrolled Oliver leading eagle to privilege and uncontrolled practitioner of Tribe is a Sioux and bud hаrvesting. He has faith. held traditional Sioux Lastly, argued gov- has that the Oliver Service, Wildlife from the Fish and permit ea- protecting interest bald ernment’s Eagle the and Golden to Bald pursuant longer because the gles compelling no (BGEPA), 16 Act U.S.C. Protection to re- proposed Fish and Wildlife Service 668(a), parts since he eagle § to receive the and endangered move from eagles bald experi- he has fifteen. Oliver claims eagle list. species threatened The bald years waiting three delays upof enced removed from the endan- has been delays these led to parts. argues He date, species as of this there- gered lists parts in eagle the illegally obtaining him fore, demonstrating the evidence sufficient question. governmental compelling removal of the presented. Any in- interest has not been the accepted magis- The district court4 the permit system in the or adequacies Religious the trate court’s decision through Con- BGEPA must be addressed (RFRA), Act Restoration Freedom and the Fish Wildlife Service. gress and 2000bb, by not violated the U.S.C. affirm. Accordingly, we In sо the holding, of Oliver. religious Oliver’s court found while district by the pro- were slow

activities frustrated system, government permit

cess governmental a compelling

demonstrated eagle popu- CARTER, bald preserving Jr., Appellee, interest Lemuel employed means lation and this end the least restrictive

reach were KEMNA; (Jay) Jeremiah Michael pro- and preserving means available for Attorney Nixon, Missouri W. eagle population. Young v. tecting General, Appellants. Church, 141 Evangelical Free Crystal No. 00-2323. (8th Cir.1998) (quоting the codi- Appeals, Court of United States restric- compelling fied state interest/least Eighth Circuit. RFRA). ‍​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍test or tive means March 2001. Submitted: magistrate and This Court finds that 18, 2001. Filed: June correctly applied the test the district Banc Rеhearing En Rehearing and appro- in RFRA reached set forth and Aug. Denied: 2001.* government that the had priate conclusion burden. It is clear that unrestrict- met its destroy eagles would

ed access bald eagle popula- and

legitimate conscientious * Bennet, Judge Bye Judge Judge W. McMillian The Honorable Mark Judge States District for the Northern petition. United of Iowa. District *2 Hawke,

Stephen D. argued, Jefferson (Jeremiah City, Nixon, (Jay) MO W. brief), for appellant. Terry Burnet, Louis, MO, argued, St. appellee. FAGG, ARNOLD, Before S. RICHARD ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD Circuit Judges.

FAGG, Judge. Circuit charged State of Missouri Lemuel Carter, murder, second-degree Jr. with assault, robbery, and armed criminal ac- tion. During selection at Carter’s trial, peremptory used a African-American, challenge to exclude ‍​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍Hurst, pool from the alter- jurors. objected asserting nate Carter 2254(d)(1); 529 U.S. at race see Hurst’s solely based exclusion Here, the district Kentucky, 476 Batson v. violation the state cоurt’s decision court concluded 90 L.Ed.2d 69 106 S.Ct. Batson, contrary to was an but (1986). prosecu- was not hearing, At a *3 Batson to the application unreasonable of challenged was because tion Hurst stated review the written facts of Carter’s case. We consistently to respond he not did being court’s conclusion de novo. Sim- questions about district voir dire and oral Bowersox, 1124, 1130 v. crime. counsel mons 235 of a Defense the victim Cir.2001). (8th exрlanation was prosecutor’s asserted be- a for intentional discrimination pretext A is con state court’s decision similarly potential situated white cause a trary clearly Supreme established Court tо Weis, juror, was removed. The it is to the Su precedent opposite when objection. The Carter’s court overruled of question conclusion on a preme Court’s convicted Car- empaneled jury originally than the Court’s Supreme law or different jurors joined alternate delibera- ter. No materially on a set of indistin conclusion tions. at 529 U.S. facts. guishable challenge his renewed Carter 412-13, Batson holds the 120 S.Ct. 1495. Ap- The Court of appeal. Missouri direct party a prevents Protection Clause Equal conviction, conclud- peals affirmed Carter’s challenges to ex using peremptory from and were although Hurst Weis ing jurors of solely because potential clude situated, excluding similarly reason Batson, 89, at 106 their race. 476 U.S. Carter, immaterial. v. was State Hurst violates 1712. When the S.Ct. 106, (Mo.Ct.App.1994). 109 889 S.W.2d Batson, must be the defendant’s conviction Hurst reasoned that bеcause The court 100, 1712. The Id. at 106 S.Ct. reversed. juror, an alternate and no rejected as materially case distin of facts Carter’s case, deliberated on Carter’s alternates however, Batson, those frоm guishable the Con- exclusion did not violate Hurst’s removal of Batson did not involve because a federal Id. Carter then filed stitution. ulti jurors ‍​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍none alternate where under petition 28 U.S.C. habeas Supreme Court mately delibеrated. The granted habeas court Carter The district re not Batson said whether or has not ap- Batson claim. The State relief on his prosecu a automatic reversal when quires peals, we reversе. juror, an alternate wrongly tor excludes joins deliberations. The Death but no alternate Antiterrorism and Effective (AEDPA) categories has held certain power Supreme of Court Penalty Act limits the de errors are structural grant a state of constitutional a habeas court to federal con obviously the entire de- affect prisoner’s petition grounds habeas fects end, beginning from of the trial merits in state court. duct on the cided 412, subject error 362, to harmless 120 and thus are not Taylor, v. 529 U.S. Williams Fulminante, (2000). 499 1495, A Arizona analysis. v. 146 L.Ed.2d 389 S.Ct. 1246, 113 111 may not habeas relief S.Ct. court U.S. federal (1991). include the 302 These court’s L.Ed.2d prisoner to a unless the state state the de exсlusion members of claim “con- unlawful rejection prisoner’s jury. Vas grand from a to, ap- fendant’s race or involved an unreasonable trary 254, 106 S.Ct. of, Hillery, 474 Federal v. U.S. plication clearly quez established Neverthеless, (1986). 598 by 88 L.Ed.2d law, Supreme Court as determined not dic- decisions do Supreme Court’s United States.” 28 U.S.C. e deliberated). jurors in Carter’s case. The state alternate Se also tate a result Norris, (8th to reverse Carter’s convic- court’s refusal Ford v. 67 F.3d 170-71 Cir.1995) (constitutional oppo- is not tion based on his Batson claim involving error ra Supreme site to the Court’s conclusion on cial selection discrimination is of law or than the question subject different defect that on a set Supreme conclusion analysis). Court’s harmless error Thus, facts. materially indistinguishable not, not, We need and do decide which agree we with the district that the — Johnson, Penry view is correсt. contrary state court’s decision is not —, 1910, 1919, clearly Supreme prece- Court established *4 (2001). If presented L.Ed.2d 9 with the dent. question might on direct we dis appeal, thus turn to the We whether agree the with state court’s decision and state decision was an unreasonable court’s hold a conviction be reversed should be Supreme precedent. application Court removing cause of a Batson violation A an state court decision involves unrea juror, though alternate even no Supreme pre sonable Court application alternate deliberates on the verdict. No unreasonably cedent the statе court when bright-line necessary rules today, how a legal refuses to extend to a principle new ever. federal may habeas court not “[A] Williams, it apply. context where should simply issue the writ because 407, 529 120 1495. U.S. аt S.Ct. Federal independent judgment concludes in its only habeas is when the relief warranted the decision applied relevant state-court unreasonable,” “objectively refusal was clearly erroneоusly law established federal merely or when it was erroneous incorrect. 411, incorrectly.” Williams, or 529 U.S. at 410-11,120 Id. at S.Ct. 1495. issue, 120 S.Ct. 1495. For the writ argues the “that application Missouri state court’s refusal must also be unreason incorrect, grant Althоugh Carter relief based Batson able.” it possibly Id. agree. reasonable. We In the absence of is an perceive analytic reasonable dis Supreme precedent, controlling Court low tinction bеtween racial discrimination in disagree er selecting petit jury, body courts about whether Batson the ‍​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍the that de requires reversal of a conviction when an cides 'a guilt criminal defendant’s or inno excluded, cence, juror improperly alternate is but racial discrimination in select joins no deliberating jury. ing jurors, nothing alternate alternate who decide Harris, Compare petit jurors United States v. 192 unless one of is dismissed. (6th Cir.1999) Fоrd, 580, F.3d (holding (finding 588 Bat- 67 F.3d at 171 analyt no Cf. involving juror- son error alternate ic is distinction between racial discrimination subject review), in composing grand jury to harmless error with and selecting pet- 893, Canoy, jury). v. F.3d it United States 38 899 n. If alternate cаlled to is delib (7th Cir.1994) (noting authority verdict, 6 some for erate on the we do not doubt holding regarding require Batson error alternate Batson and Ford would reversal juror juror selecting harmless when no alternate becаuse the discrimination alternate, Lane, deliberates); United v. jurors petit States 866 would affect (4th Cir.1989) 103, n. jury’s F.2d 106 3 if (noting composition. But no alternate verdict, prejudiced defendant would not be if on the no deliberates cоurt could deliberated); juror reasonably alternate Nevius v. the improper believe exclusion (9th Sumner, Cir.1988) F.2d juror 852 468 of an alternate not a (holding Batson error harmless when no error because it is clear the error never

593 jury that makeup of petit affected America, UNITED STATES See Ca convict defendant.

decided to Appellee/Cross-Appellant, 899; Lane, at noy, F.3d at 866 38 106; Nevius, F.2d at 852 ‍​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍468. court’s the state Because wе conclude AUSTIN, Zantreece James conviction to reverse Carter’s

refusal Appellant/Cross- objectively reason- based Appellee. able, the district court’s we reverse of habeas relief to Carter. See 00-2933, No. 00-3171. 1495; Penny, at S.Ct. Appeals, United States Court of at 1919. Eighth Circuit. ARNOLD, Judge, Circuit RICHARD S. May 2001. Submitted: dissenting. Filed: June I affirm. We have to assume (and does as- present purposes the Court'

sume) kept Mr. Hurst off the that black.

because he was Alternates and, at

important part process, of trial strike was time the unconstitutional

exercised, no one could know for sure to be a

Mr. turn out Hurst The

deliberating juror. process whole by racial discrimination as

tainted

from that time. error,

I this is a believe that to allow a interpreting

and that Batson it is ignore

state to unreasonable. only protect rights

seeks

litigants, the interests but also vindicate It jurors. is true unconstitu-

appellee cannot show that the any had effect on

tional discrimination is at stake of his case. But more

outcome rights just person.

here one than been de- thing,

For one Hurst has be-

prived important public of an office And, another, the

cause race. of his judicial has

integrity system itself deserves compromised. public

been that, if appellee even does

better than

not.