United States Ninth Circuit

A prosecutor-s failure to provide a reason for striking a potential juror is not an automatic violation of equal protection. Such a failure is evidence of discrimination, but does not relieve a trial court of its responsibility to make the ultimate determination of whether there has been purposeful discrimination. Grant of a habeas petition is reversed where it was not objectively unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that petitioner did not meet his ultimate burden of establishing purposeful discrimination in a prosecutor's juror strike. (Substituted opinion)

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/11/2006
• Published 09/11/2006

Judges

• Before ALEX KOZINSKI, STEPHEN S. TROTT, and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Barry J.T. Carlton, Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for the respondent-appellant., Randall Allan Yee, Pro Se, San Luis Obispo, CA, for the petitioner-appellee.