sanchez v. roden, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Sanchez v. Roden, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/60

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1394

DAGOBERTO SANCHEZ,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

GARY RODEN, SUPERI NTENDENT,

Respondent , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. F. Denni s Sayl or I V, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Ri ppl e, * and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Rut h Gr eenber g f or appel l ant .Thomas E. Boci an, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , wi t h whomMar t ha

Coakl ey, At t or ney Gener al , was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

May 28, 2014

* Of t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/60

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. The Four t eent h Amendment ' s

Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause guar ant ees t hat no ci t i zen wi l l be excl uded

f r om j ur y ser vi ce sol el y on account of hi s or her r ace. Thi s

l ogi cal pr oposi t i on, bor der i ng on t he obvi ous, was enshr i ned as a

mat t er of cl ear l y est abl i shed const i t ut i onal l aw i n Bat son v.

Kent ucky, 476 U. S. 79 ( 1986) . I ndeed, " [ t ] he Const i t ut i on f or bi ds

st r i ki ng [ f r om t he j ur y] even a si ngl e pr ospecti ve j ur or f or a

di scr i mi nat or y pur pose. " Snyder v. Loui si ana, 552 U. S. 472, 478

( 2008) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Vasquez- Lopez, 22 F. 3d 900, 902

( 9t h Ci r . 1994) ) . The pr i nci pl es enunci at ed i n Bat son r equi r e bot h

st at e and f eder al cour t s t o "ensur e t hat no ci t i zen i s di squal i f i ed

f r om j ur y ser vi ce because of hi s r ace. " 476 U. S. at 99. The

mat t er bef or e us i nvol ves j ust such a cl ai m. Af t er car ef ul r evi ew,

we concl ude t hat we must r emand thi s mat t er t o t he di st r i ct cour t

f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.

BACKGROUND

The Massachuset t s Appeal s Cour t ( "MAC") set f or t h t he

under l yi ng f act s as t hey coul d have been f ound by the j ur y i n

Commonweal t h v. Sanchez, 79 Mass. App. Ct . 189 ( 2011) . Rather t han

r egur gi t ate t hem, we r ef er t he r eader t o t he MAC' s r un- down. For

our pur poses, i t i s suf f i ci ent t o not e t hat Sanchez was char ged

wi t h second degr ee mur der and unl awf ul possess i on of a f i r ear m

af t er t he shoot i ng deat h of J ose Por t i l l o i n May 2005. I d. at 189-

-2-


3/60

90. Sanchez cont ended at t r i al t hat hi s act i ons const i t ut ed l awf ul

sel f - def ense or l awf ul def ense of anot her . I d.

1. Jury Impanelment in the Trial Court

As Sanchez' s appeal ar i ses out of t he Commonweal t h' s use

of perempt ory chal l enges at j ur y i mpanel ment , we descr i be t hat

pr oceedi ng i n some det ai l . J ur y i mpanel ment t ook pl ace over t he

cour se of t wo days i n Sept ember 2006. The si ze of t he j ur y pool i s

not di scl osed i n t he r ecor d. We do not know t he age, r aci al , or

et hni c backgr ound of each pr ospect i ve j ur or or t he pr opor t i on of

mal es t o f emal es i n t he pool . We do know, however , t hat t hr ee of

t he j ur or s per empt or i l y chal l enged by the Commonweal t h were bl ack

men aged t went y- f i ve or younger , whi l e another was a mal e Lat i no i n

hi s f or t i es.

The t r i al j udge sat a j ury of si xt een, whi ch ent i t l ed

each si de t o si xteen per empt or y st r i kes pur suant t o Rul e 20 of t he

Massachuset t s Rul es of Cr i mi nal Procedur e. He acceded t o t he

par t i es' j oi nt r equest t hat he pose gener al quest i ons t o t he ent i r e

panel t o determi ne whether any pr ospect i ve j ur or knew any of t he

par t i es or wi t nesses, as wel l as t o del ve i nt o whet her si t t i ng on

t he j ur y woul d r esul t i n har dshi p t o any pr ospect i ve j ur or . Thi s

i ni t i al quest i oni ng was f ol l owed by i ndi vi dual voi r di r e.

I ndi vi dual voi r di r e sought t o ascer t ai n whet her each

i ndi vi dual j ur or woul d be abl e t o j udge t he evi dence f ai r l y and

-3-


4/60

i mpar t i al l y. The j udge i dent i f i ed Sanchez as a "Hi spani c per son"

and asked each j ur or i f he or she "ha[ d] any f eel i ngs about

Hi spani c peopl e that mi ght , i n any way, af f ect [ hi s or her ] swor n

dut y t o be a f ai r and i mpar t i al j ur or i n t hi s case?"1 Addi t i onal

quest i oni ng was i nt ended t o f er r et out whet her j ur or s had any

pr eexi st i ng bi as or pr ej udi ce agai nst Sanchez and whet her Sanchez' s

age on t he dat e of t he i nci dent or at t he t i me of t r i al , sevent een

and ei ght een year s r espect i vel y, mi ght pr event t hat j ur or f r om

bei ng f ai r and i mpar t i al . The j udge t ol d pr ospect i ve j ur or s t hat

t her e may be evi dence at t r i al about st r eet gangs i n Chel sea,

Massachuset t s, and asked whether t hey had "any f eel i ngs or opi ni ons

about st r eet gangs t hat mi ght af f ect [ t hei r ] abi l i t y t o be f ai r and

i mpar t i al . " They wer e al so t ol d t he case may i nvol ve t he concept s

of sel f - def ense and def ense of anot her and, f i nal l y, asked i f t her e

was any other r eason why t hey may not be abl e t o be "f ai r and

1 Def ense counsel i ni t i al l y asked t he t r i al j udge t o make t hi si nqui r y not j ust wi t h r egar ds t o "Hi spani c" peopl e but al so "peopl eof col or . " When t he t r i al j udge asked "What does, ' peopl e ofcol or , ' have t o do wi t h t hi s?" def ense counsel opi ned, "I t hi nkt hat Hi spani cs ar e of t en consi der ed t o be peopl e of col or . "Def ense counsel went on: "You know, et hni c bi as or r aci al bi as andt hat ' s why I put i t i n t er ms of ' Hi spani c' or ' Per son' s [ si c] ofcol or ' because t hey' r e of t en consi der ed t o be a per son of col or ,and t hat a per son who i s - has f eel i ngs, negat i ve f eel i ngs,

agai nst a per son of col or mi ght al so have negat i ve f eel i ngs agai nstsomebody who i s Hi spani c. " The t r i al j udge di d not r espond t o t hi sst at ement and di d not ask pot ent i al j ur or s about pot ent i al bi asagai nst "peopl e of col or " or agai nst bl ack peopl e. I t i s uncl eart o us why t he t r i al j udge woul d consi der such an i nqui r y t o bei mper mi ssi bl e or i nappr opr i at e i n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case.

-4-


5/60

i mpar t i al " t o t he par t i es. Thr oughout t hi s pr ocess, t he t r i al

j udge af f or ded t he par t i es an oppor t uni t y t o suggest addi t i onal ,

i ndi vi dual i zed ar eas of i nqui r y based on t he r esponses t o t hese

quest i ons.

The t r i al j udge excused numer ous j uror s f or cause,

i ncl udi ng r easons such as knowl edge of a wi t ness or pot ent i al bi as

f or or agai nst a l i kel y wi t ness or t he def endant . Those j ur or s not

excused f or cause became subj ect t o t he part i es' perempt ory

chal l enges, wi t h t he Commonweal t h goi ng f i r st . I f nei t her par t y

exer ci sed a per empt or y chal l enge, t he j ur or was i mmedi at el y seat ed.

Thus, t he t r i al j udge opt ed t o have t he par t i es use t hei r

chal l enges as t he seat s wer e f i l l ed, i nst ead of seat i ng si xt een

qual i f i ed j ur or s bef or e al l owi ng t he par t i es t o exer ci se per empt or y

chal l enges. We pr i mar i l y concer n our sel ves her e wi t h t he f at es of

f i ve pr ospect i ve j ur or s.

The f i r st i s J uror No. 201, a t went y- f i ve- year - ol d bl ack

mal e who was bor n i n Tr i ni dad and empl oyed as a comput er

t echni ci an. 2 He di d not r eveal on hi s j ur or quest i onnai r e a

hi st or y of ar r est s or i nvol vement wi t h l aw enf or cement or t he cour t

2 Al t hough not appear i ng i n t he recor d, we pr esume J ur or No.201 was a Uni t ed St at es ci t i zen, as ot her wi se he woul d not have

been qual i f i ed t o serve as a j ur or i n Massachuset t s. See Mass.Gen. Laws ch. 234A, 4 ( r equi r i ng any pr ospect i ve j ur or t o be aci t i zen of t he Uni t ed St at es) ; see al so Commonweal t h v. Acen, 396Mass. 472, 481- 82 ( 1986) ( uphol di ng const i t ut i onal i t y ofci t i zenshi p r equi r ement ) . For t hi s reason, we pr esume t he ot herj uror s per emptor i l y chal l enged wer e Uni t ed Stat es ci t i zens, andt hat al l t hose seat ed on t he j ur y wer e t oo.

-5-


6/60

syst em. The t r anscri pt of hi s i ndi vi dual voi r di r e i ndi cat es t hat

he responded appr opr i at el y t o t he quest i ons asked, and the t r i al

j udge di d not excuse hi m f or cause. The Commonweal t h, however ,

used i t s f i f t h per empt or y chal l enge t o keep hi m f r om bei ng seat ed

on t he j ur y.

Next up i s J ur or No. 227, a t went y- f our - year - ol d bl ack

man f r om Bost on. Accor di ng t o hi s quest i onnai r e, J ur or No. 227' s

onl y past exper i ence wi t h l aw enf or cement was a pr i or ar r est

ar i si ng out of an unpai d t r af f i c vi ol at i on. Hi s responses t o t he

i ndi vi dual voi r di r e quest i ons wer e appr opr i at e, t he t r i al j udge

di d not f i nd any cause t o excuse hi m, and nei t her par t y asked t he

cour t t o make any f ur t her i nqui r y i nt o hi s backgr ound. The

Commonweal t h exerci sed i t s sevent h perempt ory chal l enge t o excl ude

hi m f rom t he j ury.

Thi r d i s J uror No. 243, a t went y- one- year - ol d mal e bor n

i n Moscow, Russi a, who t he par t i es agr ee i s whi t e. Accor di ng t o

hi s j ur or quest i onnai r e, he was a st udent at Bost on Uni ver si t y and

wor ked par t - t i me as an admi ni st r at i ve assi st ant f or a non- pr of i t

or gani zat i on. J ur or No. 243 answer ed t he cour t ' s quest i ons

appr opr i at el y, and he di d not cl ai mt hat ser vi ng on t he j ur y woul d

negat i vel y i mpact hi s school i ng. When quest i oned about t he nat ur e

of hi s st udi es, J ur or No. 243 t ol d t he cour t he was st udyi ng

i nt er nat i onal r el at i ons. He di d not t ake t he oppor t uni t y t o ask t o

-6-


7/60

be excused f r omj ur y ser vi ce. Nei t her par t y exer ci sed a chal l enge,

and he was seat ed.

J uror No. 246 was a f or t y- one- year - ol d man or i gi nal l y

f r om Guatemal a. When asked whether t here was any r eason t hat he

mi ght not be abl e t o be f ai r and i mpar t i al , hi s r esponse was " I

hope I coul d be f ai r . " Upon f ur t her quest i oni ng f r om t he t r i al

j udge about hi s abi l i t y t o r emai n i mpar t i al , J uror No. 246 st at ed

"[ j ] ust t hat t he r esponsi bi l i t y I mean, no, no. " At si debar , t he

Commonweal t h asked the cour t t o expl ore whether t he pr ospect i ve

j uror was "daunt ed at t he r esponsi bi l i t y of r et urni ng a ver di ct i n

t hi s case, " whi ch l ed t o f ur t her quest i oni ng and anot her r at her

uncer t ai n r esponse. The Commonweal t h t hen exerci sed i t s el event h

per empt or y chal l enge.

Fi nal l y, we r each J ur or No. 261, a ni net een- year - ol d

bl ack col l ege st udent f r om Bost on. Accor di ng t o hi s j ur or

quest i onnai r e, he worked par t - t i me at Home Depot and had no ar r est s

or ot her cont act wi t h l aw enf or cement or t he cour t syst em. The

t r anscr i pt i ndi cat es t hat he answer ed t he cour t ' s quest i ons

appr opr i at el y at i ndi vi dual voi r di r e. When asked, he t ol d t he

cour t t hat he was a st udent at Nor t heast er n Uni ver si t y, but di d not

cl ai m t he di sr upt i on t o hi s st udi es woul d const i t ut e an undue

har dshi p. The t r i al j udge di d not f i nd any cause t o excuse hi m.

The Commonweal t h, however , exerci sed i t s t wel f t h per emptor y

chal l enge to pr event J ur or No. 261 f r om bei ng seat ed.

-7-


8/60

At t hi s poi nt , def ense counsel spoke up and obj ect ed t o

what he consi dered t o be the Commonweal t h' s pat t ern of chal l enges

agai nst "Af r i can Amer i cans3 t hat have been . . . r el at i vel y young

mal es. " He ar gued " t her e' s not hi ng about t hi s j ur or t hat woul d

suppor t a nondi scr i mi nat or y r eason f or exer ci si ng t hi s chal l enge. "

The cour t t hen vol unt eered, " I t hi nk hi s youth and t he f act t hat

he' s a f ul l - t i me col l ege st udent coul d be a pr obl em. " 4 The

pr osecut or , however , di d not r espond t o t he cour t ' s specul at i ve

st at ement or i ndi cat e t hat t hose wer e, i n f act , t he r easons f or hi s

chal l enge. I nst ead, t he Commonweal t h quest i oned whether def ense

counsel was " maki ng a Bat son- Soar es5 chal l enge or . . . j ust maki ng

a r ecor d of i t [ . ] " Def ense counsel conf i r med he was obj ect i ng t o

t he per empt or y chal l enge agai nst J ur or No. 261, and ar gued that a

pr i ma f aci e showi ng of di scr i mi nat i on had been made based upon t he

Commonweal t h' s chal l enges t o two pr evi ous young bl ack men and J uror

No. 246 ( t he man f r om Guatemal a) . Def ense counsel t hen asser t ed

3 As do t he part i es, we use t he t erms " Af r i can Amer i can" and"bl ack" i nt erchangeabl y. We do t he same wi t h t he t erms "Hi spani c"and "Lat i no( a) . "

4 The Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t f r owns upon a t r i alcour t suppl yi ng a r ace- neut r al r eason f or a pr osecut or ' s chal l enge,

as " t hat r eason must come f r omt he pr osecut or , and not t he j udge. "Commonweal t h v. Fr yar , 414 Mass. 732, 739 ( 1993) . "Ot herwi se, t hej udge r i sks assumi ng t he r ol e of t he prosecutor ( or t r i al counsel ). . . . " I d.

5 Soares v. Commonweal t h, 327 Mass. 461 (1979) , t he bedrockMassachuset t s case i n thi s ar ea.

-8-


9/60

t hat i n l i ght of t he l at est chal l enge t o J ur or No. 261, "t hi s woul d

be t he f our t h per son of col or " pr event ed f r omsi t t i ng on t he j ur y.

The t r i al j udge f i r st at t empt ed t o r esol ve t he obj ect i on

by st at i ng, "f or pur poses of t hi s par t i cul ar j ur or , al one, I wi l l

f i nd t hat t her e i s a pat t er n of chal l engi ng bl ack young men. " The

j udge t hen asked t he Commonweal t h t o expl ai n t he basi s f or i t s

per emptory chal l enge. The Commonweal t h f ought back, however ,

aski ng t he t r i al j udge i f he was act ual l y "f i ndi ng a pat t er n of

chal l enges by t he Commonweal t h wi t h r espect t o young Af r i can

Amer i can men[ , ] " and advi si ng t he cour t t hat i t needed t o f i nd such

a pat t er n exi st ed bef or e i t coul d i nqui r e as t o t he r easoni ng

behi nd t he chal l enges. The f ol l owi ng col l oquy t ook pl ace bet ween

t he t r i al j udge and t he pr osecut or , At t or ney Mar k Lee:

The Cour t : Basi cal l y, what I was t r yi ng t odo, and I t hi nk - I ' m not so sur e, so how' st hi s, t o shor t cut t hat and f or you t o ask -t o tel l me why -

Mr . Lee: I don' t t hi nk so, Your Honor , and It hi nk t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t has beenr el at i vel y cl ear on t hi s poi nt , and al most t ot he poi nt where there needs t o be al mostspeci f i ed l anguage, and I woul d, at t hi spoi nt , ask t he Cour t whet her i t i s f i ndi ng, asa mat t er of f act , t hat t he Commonweal t h hasengaged i n a pat t er n of di scr i mi nat i on.

The t r i al j udge, af t er r evi ewi ng case l aw, i ndi cat ed t hat t he par t y

r ai si ng t he i ssue must make a pr i ma f aci e showi ng of i mpr opr i et y i n

t he use of per empt or y chal l enges by showi ng t he pr ospect i ve j ur or s

who have been chal l enged are member s of a di scr et e group. He

-9-


10/60

f ur t her st at ed t hat Sanchez was r equi r ed t o show " t hat t her e i s a

l i kel i hood t hat t hey ar e bei ng excl uded f r om t he j ur y sol e[ l ] y on

t he basi s of t hei r gr oup member shi p. "

The t r i al j udge i ni t i al l y appeared t o agr ee wi t h def ense

counsel ' s posi t i on, st at i ng, " [ y] ou have [ n] umber one, okay,

t her e' s a pr i ma f aci [ e] showi ng. " When def ense counsel sai d t hat

no nondi scr i mi nat or y reason f or t he chal l enges was appar ent on t he

r ecor d, t he t r i al j udge r esponded, " [ b] ut t he quest i on i s whet her

i t ' s l i kel y t her e was a l i kel i hood t hey wer e bei ng excl uded f r om

t he j ur y sol e[ l ] y on t he basi s of t hei r gr oup member shi p, t hat ' s

t he second i ssue t hat has t o be est abl i shed by t he chal l engi ng

par t y. " Def ense counsel mai ntai ned t hat t he Commonweal t h was

obl i gat ed t o show a nondi scr i mi nat or y reason, st at i ng " t her e was

not hi ng t hat came out i n t he cour se of voi r [ ] di r e exami nat i on t hat

woul d est abl i sh a nondi scr i mi nat or y r eason f or t he chal l enge; t hat

i s, we have mi nor i t i es who wer e chal l enged and not hi ng i n the

voi r [ ] di r e t o i ndi cat e, on [ i t s] f ace, a nondi scri mi nat or y r eason

f or i t . " The pr osecut or shot back, t el l i ng t he cour t he

"di sagr ee[ d] ent i r el y wi t h t hat anal ysi s, " and i nsi st ed he had no

bur den t o gi ve any expl anat i on f or hi s chal l enges unl ess and unt i l

t he court f ound t he Commonweal t h had "engaged i n a pat t ern of

di scr i mi nat or y use of [ per empt or y] chal l enges. "

The t r i al j udge went deeper i nto t he i ssue. He t ook

anot her l ook at t he j ur or s and had def ense counsel conf i r mt hat t he

-10-


11/60

excl usi on of J ur or s No. 201, 227, and 246 f or med t he basi s f or t he

al l eged pat t er n of di scr i mi nat i on. The t r i al j udge opi ned t hat

J uror No. 246, bei ng f r omGuat emal a, "under no ci r cumst ances coul d

. . . be consi der ed a man of col or . " The t r i al j udge t hen r epor t ed

t her e wer e, "al r eady, f i ve bl ack peopl e si t t i ng on t hi s j ur y, okay;

so I can' t see, as a cl ass; r egar di ng t o t he col or woul d be a

pr obl em. " He at t empt ed t o summari ze def ense counsel ' s posi t i on,

st at i ng "[ w] hat you' r e basi cal l y sayi ng i s i t ' s because t hey' r e

young bl ack men, i s t hat cor r ect ; i n ot her wor ds, t he emphasi s on

t hei r age?" Def ense counsel r esponded:

I t hi nk t hat t hat ' s cert ai nl y part of i t ; Imean I t hi nk t hat t hat ' s what di st i ngui shest hese chal l enges f r om t he ot her bl ack per sonswho wer en' t chal l enged. But I t hi nk t hat eveni f you j ust l ook at t he two bl ack per sons whowere chal l enged, t hat woul d be two out of at ot al of seven whi ch i s a si gni f i cantper cent age, i n and of i t sel f . But t headdi t i onal f eat ur e t o t he bl ack per sons whohave been chal l enged, I bel i eve, ar e t her el at i vel y yout hf ul - I guess one i s 24 andone i s 25.

Def ense counsel cont i nued, ar gui ng t hat even i f he wer e to " t ake

out [ J ur or No. 246] , t he Guat emal an, [ J ur or No. 261] woul d be t he

t hi r d bl ack man chal l enged out of a t ot al of ei ght who have been

quest i oned, so f ar . " The pr osecut or t ook t he posi t i on t hat t he

chal l enged gr oupi ng was based on t he young age of t he pr ospect i ve

j uror s, and t hat age i s not "a prot ect ed cl ass f or pur poses of

Soar es and Bat son. "

-11-


12/60

Af t er hear i ng f r omcounsel , t he t r i al j udge made an or al

r ul i ng " t hat t her e has not been shown a pat t er n of di scr i mi nat i on

i n t hi s case, under t he Soar es case, at t hi s t i me. " He t hen

per mi t t ed the pr osecut or t o exer ci se hi s per empt or y chal l enge

agai nst J ur or No. 261. At no t i me di d t he t r i al j udge r equi r e t he

Commonweal t h t o j ust i f y i t s per empt or y chal l enge to J ur or No. 261,

nor di d t he pr osecut or ever of f er any expl anat i on f or any of t he

chal l enges.

J ury sel ect i on cont i nued, wi t h each si de exerci si ng

sever al addi t i onal per empt or y chal l enges, but t her e wer e no f ur t her

al l egat i ons of di scr i mi nat i on. The r ecor d does not r eveal t he

et hni c backgr ounds of t he addi t i onal j ur or s, or t he backgr ound of

any of t he ot her s who were excl uded. Thus, we know not hi ng about

t he over al l et hni c makeup of t he seat ed j ur y, apar t f r om t he f act

t hat at l east f i ve member s wer e bl ack. The seat ed j ur or s ranged

f r omages t went y- one t hr ough f i f t y- f i ve, al t hough t he age of J ur or

No. 305 does not appear i n t he r ecor d.

Af t er al l t he evi dence was i n and cl osi ng ar gument s

compl et ed, t he t r i al j udge i nst r uct ed t he j ur or s on t he el ement s of

second degr ee mur der and the l esser i ncl uded of f ense of

mansl aught er , al ong wi t h sel f - def ense and def ense of anot her . The

j ury f ound Sanchez gui l t y of second degree murder and possessi on of

a f i r ear m wi t hout a l i cense. The cour t sent enced Sanchez t o l i f e

-12-


13/60

i n pr i son f or t he mur der convi ct i on, wi t h a concur r ent t wo year

sent ence f or t he gun of f ense.

2. Sanchez's Appeals

Sanchez appeal ed hi s convi ct i on t o t he MAC. Al t hough he

pr essed sever al gr ounds on appeal , t he onl y i ssue we need concern

our sel ves wi t h i s t he Commonweal t h' s use of perempt ory chal l enges.

Sanchez ar gued t he Commonweal t h used i t s per emptor y chal l enges t o

excl ude al l "young men of col or i n t he j ur y pool " i n vi ol at i on of

t he equal pr ot ect i on guar ant ees of bot h t he Massachuset t s

Decl ar at i on of Ri ght s and t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on.

Accor di ng t o hi s br i ef t o t he MAC, by the t i me Sanchez obj ect ed t o

t he excl usi on of J ur or No. 261, t he Commonweal t h had "perempt or i l y

chal l enged f our of t he si x non- whi t e men cal l ed, and every man of

col or under t hi r t y[ , ] " whi l e "[ t ] wo young whi t e men wer e seat ed

wi t hout chal l enge. " Ci t i ng bot h Massachuset t s and f eder al case

l aw, Sanchez t ook t he posi t i on t hat t he Commonweal t h' s chal l enges

t o "al l young men of col or " vi ol at ed equal pr ot ect i on pr i nci pl es

because t he r ecor d est abl i shed that , had they been whi t e or f emal e,

t hey woul d have been permi t t ed t o ser ve. Sanchez assert ed t hat t he

chal l enged j ur ors wer e not excl uded because of t hei r age, but

because of t hei r r ace.

For i t s par t , t he Commonweal t h rei t er at ed i t s ar gument

t hat Sanchez had f ai l ed t o make out a pr i ma f aci e case of

-13-


14/60

di scr i mi nat i on. Concedi ng i t woul d be i mpr oper t o exer ci se

per empt or y chal l enges on t he basi s of r ace or gender , t he

Commonweal t h mai nt ai ned t hat " [ a] ge, however , i s not a di scr ete

gr oup t hat i s af f or ded such const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on. " The hear t

of t he Commonweal t h' s posi t i on was, essent i al l y, t hat si nce at t he

t i me of Sanchez' s obj ect i on t her e wer e al r eady f i ve bl ack peopl e

seat ed and onl y one j ur or was under t he age of t hi r t y, t he r ecor d

showed t he Commonweal t h chal l enged the t hree young bl ack men- - aged

ni net een, t went y- f our , and t went y- f i ve- - because of t hei r yout h, not

t hei r r ace. Thus, t he Commonweal t h bel i eved t he t r i al j udge di d

not err when he decl i ned t o make a pr i ma f aci e f i ndi ng of

di scri mi nat i on.

The MAC si ded wi t h t he Commonweal t h, f ocusi ng i t s

anal ysi s on t he Massachuset t s Decl ar at i on of Ri ght s r at her t han t he

Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on i n t he bel i ef t hat t he out come woul d be

t he same r egar dl ess of whet her i t r est ed i t s deci si on on st at e or

f ederal l aw. Sanchez, 79 Mass. App. Ct . at 191 n. 8. The MAC set

f or t h t he cont r ol l i ng Massachuset t s l aw: "Per empt or y chal l enges

are pr esumed t o be pr oper , but t hat pr esumpt i on may be r ebut t ed on

a showi ng t hat ' ( 1) t her e i s a pat t er n of excl udi ng member s of a

di scret e gr oup and ( 2) i t i s l i kel y t hat i ndi vi dual s ar e bei ng

excl uded sol el y on t he basi s of t hei r member shi p' i n t hat gr oup. "

I d. at 192 ( quot i ng Commonweal t h v. Mal donado, 439 Mass. 460, 463

( 2003) ( f ur t her ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) . The MAC f el t Sanchez' s cl ai m

-14-


15/60

of di scr i mi nat or y use of per empt or y chal l enges was f or ecl osed by

t he f act t hat f i ve ot her bl ack j ur or s had al r eady been seat ed when

t he Commonweal t h chal l enged J ur or No. 261. I d. I t t hen obser ved

"age i s not a pr ot ect ed cl ass under ei t her t he Decl ar at i on of

Ri ght s . . . or t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on. " I d. at 193. The

MAC f ur t her f ound t hat t he t r i al j udge "di d not er r i n r ej ect i ng

[ Sanchez' s] asser t i on t hat ' per sons of col or ' i ncl udes bot h

Af r i can- Amer i can and Hi spani c j ur or s and const i t ut es a di scr et e

aggr egate gr oup under Soar es. " I d. As such, t he MAC agr eed wi t h

t he t r i al j udge t hat Sanchez had f ai l ed t o make a pr i ma f aci e

showi ng t hat t he Commonweal t h' s use of per emptory chal l enges was

l i kel y mot i vat ed by t he r ace of t he j ur or s. I d. at 192- 93.

Undaunt ed by the MAC' s r ej ect i on of hi s appeal , Sanchez

f i l ed an Appl i cat i on f or Leave t o Obt ai n Fur t her Appel l at e Revi ew

wi t h t he Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t ( "SJ C") . Sanchez

ar gued t he Commonweal t h' s el i mi nat i on of " f our of si x non- whi t e

mal e j ur or s whi l e seat i ng si mi l ar l y si t uat ed whi t e mal e j ur or s"

r equi r ed a pr i ma f aci e f i ndi ng of di scr i mi nat i on, whi ch t he t r i al

j udge er r ed by f ai l i ng t o make. Sanchez f ur t her st at ed t he

Commonweal t h "del i beratel y" pr event ed al l young men of col or f r om

si t t i ng on t he j ur y. The SJ C, however , deni ed t he pet i t i on on J une

29, 2011, wi t hout i ssui ng a wr i t t en opi ni on. Commonweal t h v.

Sanchez, 460 Mass. 1106 ( 2011) . Sanchez' s subsequent pet i t i on f or

-15-


16/60

a wr i t of cer t i or ar i f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t was

deni ed as wel l . Sanchez v. Massachuset t s, 132 S. Ct . 408 ( 2011) .

Ther e bei ng no f ur t her avenue of di r ect appeal i n t he

Massachuset t s cour t s, Sanchez t ur ned t o t he f eder al cour t s and

sought a wr i t of habeas cor pus f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct

Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed

t he pet i t i on, but gr ant ed a Cer t i f i cat e of Appeal abi l i t y. Thi s

appeal f ol l owed.

DISCUSSION

1. The Lay of the Land

On appeal t o t hi s Cour t , Sanchez ar gues t he

Commonweal t h' s use of perempt ory chal l enges agai nst young Af r i can

Amer i cans vi ol at ed t he equal pr ot ect i on pr i nci pl es l ai d down i n

Batson v. Kent ucky, 476 U. S. 79 ( 1986) . Because t he equal

pr ot ect i on j ur i spr udence of Bat son and i t s pr ogeny i s at t he hear t

of t he pr ocedur al and subst ant i ve i ssues r ai sed by t he par t i es, we

l ay the gr oundwor k her e, at t he out set , t o put mat t er s i nt o

per spect i ve.

I n Bat son, t he Supr eme Cour t r eaf f i r med t he l ongst andi ng

pr oposi t i on t hat t he Four t eent h Amendment ' s Equal Prot ect i on Cl ause

bar s a pr osecut or f r om exer ci si ng a per empt or y chal l enge based on

t he r ace of a pr ospect i ve j ur or . I d. at 86- 87. The "[ e] xcl usi on

of bl ack ci t i zens f r om ser vi ce as j ur or s const i t ut es a pr i mar y

-16-


17/60

exampl e of t he evi l t he Four t eent h Amendment was desi gned t o cur e. "

I d. at 85. Al t hough t he Four t eent h Amendment does not pr ovi de a

def endant wi t h a " r i ght t o a ' pet i t j ur y composed i n whol e or i n

par t of per sons of hi s own r ace' . . . [ a] def endant does have t he

r i ght t o be t r i ed by a j ur y whose members are sel ected pur suant t o

nondi scr i mi nat or y cr i t er i a. " I d. at 85- 86 ( quot i ng St r auder v.

West Vi r gi ni a, 100 U. S. 303, 305 ( 1879) ) . The Bat son Cour t

r eexami ned " t he evi dent i ary bur den pl aced on a cr i mi nal def endant

who cl ai ms t hat he has been deni ed equal pr otect i on t hr ough the

St ate' s use of perempt ory chal l enges t o excl ude members of hi s r ace

f r om t he pet i t j ur y. " I d. at 82.

Pr i or t o Bat son, t he Supr eme Cour t had hel d " [ i ] t was

i mper mi ssi bl e f or a pr osecut or t o use hi s chal l enges t o excl ude

bl acks f r om t he j ur y ' f or r easons whol l y unr el at ed t o t he out come

of t he par t i cul ar case on t r i al ' or t o deny bl acks ' t he same r i ght

and oppor t uni t y t o par t i ci pat e i n t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce

enj oyed by the whi t e popul at i on. ' " I d. at 91 ( quot i ng Swai n v.

Al abama, 380 U. S. 202, 224 ( 1965) ) . Thus, bef or e Bat son "a bl ack

def endant coul d make out a pr i ma f aci e case of pur posef ul

di scr i mi nat i on on pr oof t hat t he per empt or y chal l enge syst em was

' bei ng per ver t ed' i n t hat manner . " I d. ( quot i ng Swai n, 380 U. S. at

224) . A def endant coul d meet t hi s st andard by showi ng, f or exampl e

t hat a pr osecut or , " i n case af t er case,whatever t he ci r cumst ances, whatever t he cr i meand whoever t he def endant or t he vi ct i m maybe, i s r esponsi bl e f or t he r emoval of [ Af r i can

-17-


18/60

Amer i cans] who have been sel ected as qual i f i edj uror s by t he j ury commi ssi oner s and who havesur vi ved chal l enges f or cause, wi t h t he r esul tt hat no [ Af r i can Amer i cans] ever serve onpet i t j ur i es. "

I d. at 91- 92 ( quot i ng Swai n, 380 U. S. at 223) . The def endant i n

Swai n f ai l ed t o meet t hat st andar d because "he of f er ed no pr oof of

t he ci r cumst ances under whi ch pr osecut or s wer e responsi bl e f or

st r i ki ng bl ack j ur or s beyond t he f act s of hi s own case. " I d. at

92.

Per haps unsur pr i si ngl y gi ven t he Cour t ' s r easoni ng i n

Swai n, subsequent deci si ons f r om t he l ower cour t s concl uded " t hat

pr oof of r epeat ed st r i ki ng of bl acks over a number of cases was

necessar y t o est abl i sh a vi ol at i on of t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause. "

I d. Requi r i ng def endant s t o make such showi ngs put t hem t o "a

cr i ppl i ng bur den of pr oof " and ef f ect i vel y render ed per empt or y

chal l enges "l ar gel y i mmune f r om const i t ut i onal scr ut i ny. " I d. at

92- 93. Thi s l ed t he Bat son Cour t t o r el ax t he demandi ng st andar d

and decl are t hat "a def endant may est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of

pur posef ul di scri mi nat i on i n sel ect i on of t he pet i t j ur y sol el y on

evi dence concer ni ng t he pr osecut or ' s exer ci se of per empt or y

chal l enges at t he def endant ' s t r i al . " I d. at 96.

Under Bat son as or i gi nal l y f or mul at ed, a def endant

" f i r st must show t hat he i s a member of a cogni zabl e raci al gr oup,

and t hat t he pr osecut or has exer ci sed per empt or y chal l enges t o

r emove f r om t he veni r e member s of t he def endant ' s r ace. " I d.

-18-


19/60

( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) . 6 A def endant i s al so "ent i t l ed t o

r el y on t he f act , as t o whi ch t her e can be no di sput e, t hat

per empt or y chal l enges const i t ut e a j ur y sel ect i on pr act i ce t hat

per mi t s ' t hose to di scr i mi nat e who ar e of a mi nd t o di scr i mi nat e. ' "

I d. ( quot i ng Aver y v. Geor gi a, 345 U. S. 559, 562 ( 1953) ) .

"Fi nal l y, t he def endant must show t hat t hese f act s and any ot her

r el evant ci r cumst ances r ai se an i nf er ence t hat t he pr osecut or used

t hat pr act i ce t o excl ude t he veni r emen f r om t he pet i t j ur y on

account of t hei r r ace. " I d. I t i s t hi s "combi nat i on of f actor s"

f r om whi ch t he i ni t i al pr i ma f aci e i nf er ence of di scr i mi nat i on

ar i ses. I d.

The Cour t went on t o st r ess t hat a t r i al cour t i s

r equi r ed t o "consi der al l r el evant ci r cumst ances" i n det er mi ni ng

whet her a def endant has sat i sf i ed t he pr i ma f aci e bur den. I d. I t

pr ovi ded a coupl e of "i l l ust r at i ve" exampl es. I d. at 97. An

i nf er ence of di scr i mi nat i on mi ght be dr awn when t her e i s "a

' pat t er n' of st r i kes agai nst bl ack j ur or s. " I d. Al t er nat i vel y, a

"pr osecut or ' s quest i ons and st at ement s dur i ng voi r di r e exami nat i on

and i n exer ci si ng hi s chal l enges may suppor t or r ef ut e an i nf er ence

of di scr i mi nat or y pur pose. " I d. Ul t i mat el y, i t i s up t o t he t r i al

j udge t o det er mi ne whet her t he r el evant ci r cumst ances i n any

6 A cogni zabl e r aci al gr oup i s one t hat i s " capabl e of bei ngsi ngl ed out f or di f f er ent i al t r eat ment . " I d. at 94 ( ci t i ngCast aneda v. Par t i da, 430 U. S. 482, 494 ( 1977) ) .

-19-


20/60

par t i cul ar case ar e suf f i ci ent t o make out a pr i ma f aci e case of

di scr i mi nat i on. I d.

Once a def endant has made out a pr i ma f aci e case, " t he

bur den shi f t s t o t he St at e to come f or war d wi t h a neut r al

expl anat i on f or chal l engi ng bl ack j ur or s. " I d. I n addi t i on t o

bei ng r aci al l y neut r al , t he r easoni ng under gi r di ng t he chal l enge

must be "r el at ed t o t he par t i cul ar case t o be t r i ed. " I d. at 98.

Af t er t he pr osecut or pr ovi des a neut r al expl anat i on, i t f al l s t o

t he t r i al cour t " t o det er mi ne i f t he def endant has est abl i shed

pur posef ul di scr i mi nat i on. " I d. Thi s i nqui r y has come t o be

r ef er r ed t o as t he t hr ee- pr onged Bat son t est .

Thus, whi l e Bat son l ower ed t he evi dent i ar y hur dl e wi t h

r espect t o di scr i mi nat or y use of per empt or y chal l enges, some

si gni f i cant bar r i er s remai ned. Fi r st , a def endant coul d not obj ect

t o di scr i mi natory use of chal l enges unl ess he hi msel f was a member

of a cogni zabl e r aci al gr oup. And even i f t he def endant was a

member of such a gr oup, he coul d obj ect onl y i f t he pr osecut or used

per empt or y chal l enges t o el i mi nat e j ur or s t hat shar ed t he

def endant ' s raci al backgr ound. I n ot her wor ds, an Af r i can- Amer i can

def endant coul d onl y obj ect t o t he el i mi nat i on of pr ospect i ve

Af r i can- Amer i can j ur or s. Ther ef or e, even post - Bat son, a pr osecut or

coul d exer ci se per empt or y st r i kes on t he basi s of r ace, so l ong as

t he pr osecut or si mpl y avoi ded di scr i mi nat i ng agai nst member s of t he

def endant ' s r ace.

-20-


21/60

A def endant ' s abi l i t y t o obj ect t o di scr i mi nat or y use of

perempt ory chal l enges has been expanded consi derabl y i n t he years

si nce Batson was deci ded. Whi l e Batson f ocused on a def endant ' s

Four t eent h Amendment r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al , t he Cour t t ur ned i t s

at t ent i on t o an i ndi vi dual j ur or ' s r i ght not t o be di scri mi nat ed

agai nst because of hi s or her r ace i n Power s v. Ohi o, 499 U. S. 400

( 1991) . The Cour t made i t cl ear t hat , al t hough " [ a] n i ndi vi dual

j uror does not have a r i ght t o si t on any par t i cul ar pet i t

j ury, . . . he or she does possess t he r i ght not t o be excl uded

f r om one on account of r ace. " I d. at 409. The Power s Cour t

"concl ude[ d] t hat a def endant i n a cr i mi nal case can r ai se the

t hi r d- par t y equal pr ot ect i on cl ai ms of j ur or s excl uded by t he

pr osecut i on because of t hei r r ace. " I d. at 415. I mpor t ant l y, a

def endant may advance such an obj ect i on "whet her or not t he

def endant and t he excl uded j ur or shar e t he same r aces. " I d. at

402. And, i n Mi l l er - El v. Dr et ke, 545 U. S. 231, 237- 38 ( 2005)

( "Mi l l er - El I I ") , t he Supr eme Cour t r ef er r ed br oadl y t o t he har m

t hat r esul t s f r om "r aci al di scr i mi nat i on" i n t he j ur y sel ect i on

pr ocess and t hat i s done when t he "choi ce of j ur or s i s t ai nt ed wi t h

r aci al bi as. " Accor di ngl y, t oday a def endant i s f r ee t o obj ect t o

t he use of a perempt ory chal l enge wi t hout r egard t o whether t he

def endant and t he excused j ur or ar e of t he same r ace. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Mensah, 737 F. 3d 789, 797 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( bl ack

-21-


22/60

def endant obj ect i ng t o perempt or y chal l enges agai nst Asi an-

Amer i cans) , cer t . deni ed, 134 S. Ct . 1912 ( 2014) .

I n sum, Bat son has expanded and evol ved t o bet t er

accompl i sh i t s over r i di ng goal of endi ng r aci al di scr i mi nat i on i n

t he use of per empt or y chal l enges. As such, t he ear l i er s t r i ct ur es

have f al l en by t he waysi de. The pr oper f ocus of a Bat son i nqui r y,

t her ef or e, i s not whet her t he def endant or excl uded j ur or i s par t

of a cogni zabl e gr oup, but r ather whet her "a per empt or y chal l enge

was based on r ace. " Snyder v. Loui si ana, 552 U. S. 472, 476

( 2008) . 7

Havi ng set t he st age, we t ur n our at t ent i on t o t he

speci f i c i ssues r ai sed i n t hi s appeal .

2. Standard of Review

We ar e cal l ed upon t o r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

di smi ssal of Sanchez' s habeas pet i t i on. I t i s wel l est abl i shed

t hat "[ o] ur r evi ew of a di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant or deni al of habeas

i s de novo. " Heal y v. Spencer , 453 F. 3d 21, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2006)

( ci t i ng Nor t on v. Spencer , 351 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ) . Our de

novo r evi ew encompasses t he di st r i ct cour t ' s own "det er mi nat i on of

7 Equal pr ot ect i on appl i es, of cour se, t o al l i ndi vi dual sr egar dl ess of t hei r r ace. Exer ci si ng per empt or y chal l enges agai nstwhi t e j ur or s on account of t hei r r ace vi ol at es Bat son j ust assur el y as does st r i ki ng bl ack j ur or s because of t hei r s. Uni t edSt at es v. Wal ker , 490 F. 3d 1282, 1292 ( 11t h Ci r . 2007) , cer t .deni ed, 552 U. S. 1257 (2008) .

-22-


23/60

t he appr opr i at e st andar d of r evi ew of t he st at e cour t pr oceedi ng. "

Zul uaga v. Spencer , 585 F. 3d 27, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Al t hough t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s wr i t t en deci si on may be "hel pf ul f or i t s

r easoni ng, [ i t ] i s ent i t l ed t o no def er ence. " Heal y, 453 F. 3d at

25. Thi s essent i al l y pl aces us "i n t he shoes" of t he di st r i ct

cour t and r equi r es us t o det er mi ne whet her t he habeas pet i t i on

shoul d have been gr ant ed i n t he f i r st i nst ance.

3. Exhaustion of State Remedies

The Commonweal t h ar gues on appeal , f or t he f i r st t i me we

not e, t hat Sanchez' s cl ai ms are bar r ed because he f ai l ed t o exhaust

al l avai l abl e r emedi es i n t he Massachuset t s cour t s. Pl aci ng an

undue emphasi s on l abel i ng i ndi vi dual s as members of one gr oup or

another- - as i t does t hr oughout t hi s appeal - - t he Commonweal t h ur ges

us t o f i nd Sanchez f ai l ed t o exhaust hi s r emedi es i n st at e cour t

pr oceedi ngs because he var i ousl y def i ned t he cogni zabl e cl ass of

i ndi vi dual s who had been di scr i mi nated agai nst as mal es who are

ei t her "young men of col or " or "Af r i can- Amer i can. " The

Commonweal t h' s vi ew i s t hat Sanchez has not pr evi ousl y "al l ege[d]

a di scr i mi nat or y pat t er n of excl udi ng young, Af r i can- Amer i can men,

i n par t i cul ar , f r omt he j ur y, whi ch i s t he cl ai mbei ng made her e on

appeal . " Accor di ngl y, t he Commonweal t h concl udes t hat whi l e a

cl ai m of di scr i mi nat i on agai nst men of col or may have been

-23-


24/60

exhaust ed, any cl ai mof di scr i mi nat or y use of per empt or y chal l enges

agai nst young bl ack men i s bar r ed f or f ai l ur e t o exhaust r emedi es.

I n r ej oi nder , Sanchez argues t hat t he gr ounds pressed i n

st at e cour t have al ways i ncl uded hi s speci f i c cl ai m t hat t he

Commonweal t h i mpr oper l y exerci sed i t s perempt ory chal l enges t o

el i mi nat e "al l young bl ack men" f r omt he j ur y. Respondi ng di r ect l y

t o the Commonweal t h' s vi ew t hat a cl ai m of di scr i mi nat i on agai nst

"young men of col or " i s di f f er ent f r om a cl ai m of di scri mi nat i on

agai nst "young bl ack men, " Sanchez poi nt s out t hat "men of col or"

i s "a pol i t i cal l y cor r ect t er m [ t hat ] necessar i l y i ncl udes the

l esser i ncl uded gr oup of bl ack men. " Sanchez al so advi ses that he

has al ways cl ai med t hat t he Commonweal t h depr i ved t hree young bl ack

men of t hei r Four t eent h Amendment r i ght s and t hat "every cour t

pr i or t o t hi s has r ecogni zed t hi s as t he i ssue pr esent ed. "

Ther ef or e, Sanchez bel i eves t hat he proper l y exhaust ed al l st at e

r emedi es bef or e seeki ng r el i ef by way of hi s habeas pet i t i on. 8

8 The Commonweal t h wai ved i t s exhaust i on def ense by f ai l i ng t or ai se i t bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t . "When t he St at e answer s ahabeas cor pus pet i t i on, i t has a dut y to advi se t he di st r i ct cour twhet her t he pr i soner has, i n f act , exhaust ed al l avai l abl e st at er emedi es. " Gr anber r y v. Gr eer , 481 U. S. 129, 134 ( 1987) . Apr ocedur al def ense, such as exhaust i on, i s wai ved i f not r ai sed i nr esponse t o t hat pet i t i on or ar gued bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t .Rosent hal v. O' Br i en, 713 F. 3d 676, 683 ( 1st Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed,

134 S. Ct . 434 ( 2013) . Whi l e t he Commonweal t h di d set outexhaust i on of r emedi es as an af f i r mat i ve def ense i n i t s answer t ot he habeas pet i t i on, i t expl i ci t l y admi t t ed Sanchez exhaust ed st at er emedi es. The Commonweal t h t hen f ai l ed t o even ment i on anexhaust i on def ense i n i t s br i ef t o t he di st r i ct cour t . Thus, t heCommonweal t h has wai ved i t . See Bl edsue v. J ohnson, 188 F. 3d 250,254 ( 5t h Ci r . 1999) ( exhaust i on def ense wai ved where st ate admi t t ed

-24-


25/60

The exhaust i on r equi r ement has been codi f i ed i n t he

Ant i t er r or i smand Ef f ect i ve Deat h Penal t y Act of 1996 ( "AEDPA") , 28

U. S. C. 2254( b) ( 1) ( A) . Cl ement s v. Mal oney, 485 F. 3d 158, 161- 62

( 1st Ci r . 2007) . Accor di ng t o t he st at ut e, a habeas appl i cant must

"exhaust [ ] t he remedi es avai l abl e i n t he cour t s of t he St at e"

bef or e r unni ng t o f eder al cour t . 28 U. S. C. 2254( b) ( 1) ( A) . Thi s

obl i gat i on has i t s genesi s i n t he pr i nci pl e "t hat as a mat t er of

comi t y, f eder al cour t s shoul d not consi der a cl ai m i n a habeas

cor pus pet i t i on unt i l af t er t he st at e cour t s have had an

oppor t uni t y t o act . " Coni ngf or d v. Rhode I sl and, 640 F. 3d 478, 482

( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 515 ( 1982) ) .

Gener al l y speaki ng, a pet i t i oner ' s f ai l ur e t o exhaust al l st at e

r emedi es i s " f at al t o t he pr osecut i on of a f eder al habeas case. "

I d.

A cl ai m based on f eder al l aw i s not exhaust ed unl ess a

pet i t i oner has "f ai r l y and r ecogni zabl y" pr esent ed i t t o t he st at e

cour t s. Casel l a v. Cl emons, 207 F. 3d 18, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . By

t hi s we mean t hat a pet i t i oner must have " t endered hi s f ederal

cl ai m ' i n such a way as t o make i t pr obabl e t hat a r easonabl e

j ur i st woul d have been al er t ed t o t he exi st ence of t he f eder al

quest i on. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Adel son v. Di Paol a, 131 F. 3d 259, 262

al l st at e r emedi es had been suf f i ci ent l y exhaust ed) . Never t hel ess,we pr oceed t o t he mer i t s because t he Supreme Cour t has advi sed ust o " t ake a f r esh l ook" at t he exhaust i on i ssue wher e " t he St at ef ai l s, whet her i nadver t ent l y or ot her wi se, t o r ai se an ar guabl ymer i t or i ous nonexhaust i on def ense. " Gr anber r y, 481 U. S. at 134.

-25-


26/60

( 1st Ci r . 1997) ) . St at ed somewhat di f f er ent l y, "' t he l egal t heor y

[ ar t i cul at ed] i n t he st at e and f eder al cour t s must be t he same. ' "

Cl ement s, 485 F. 3d at 162 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Gagne

v. Fai r , 835 F. 2d 6, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ) .

We have i dent i f i ed sever al ways i n whi ch a pet i t i oner may

sat i sf y t hi s r equi r ement , i ncl udi ng "r el i ance on a speci f i c

pr ovi si on of t he Const i t ut i on, subst ant i ve and conspi cuous

pr esent at i on of a f eder al const i t ut i onal cl ai m, on- poi nt ci t at i on

t o f eder al const i t ut i onal pr ecedent s, i dent i f i cat i on of a

par t i cul ar r i ght speci f i cal l y guar ant eed by t he Const i t ut i on, and

asser t i on of a st at e- l aw cl ai mt hat i s f uncti onal l y i dent i cal t o a

f eder al const i t ut i onal cl ai m. " Coni ngf or d, 640 F. 3d at 482. I n

addi t i on, "ci t at i ons t o st at e cour t deci si ons whi ch r el y on f eder al

l aw or ar t i cul at i on of a stat e cl ai m t hat i s , ' as a pr act i cal

mat t er , [ ] i ndi st i ngui shabl e f r om one ar i si ng under f eder al l aw'

may suf f i ce t o sat i sf y t he exhaust i on r equi r ement . " Cl ement s, 485

F. 3d at 162 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Nadwor ny v. Fai r , 872

F. 2d 1093, 1099- 1100 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ) . The exhaust i on r equi r ement

i s not sat i sf i ed, t hough, i f a pet i t i oner has "si mpl y r eci t e[ d] t he

f act s under l yi ng a st at e cl ai m, wher e those f act s mi ght suppor t

ei t her a f eder al or st at e cl ai m. " I d.

The Commonweal t h' s ar gument t hat Sanchez f ai l ed t o meet

t he exhaust i on r equi r ement r el i es heavi l y on Gr ay v. Br ady, 592

F. 3d 296 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Accordi ng t o t he Commonweal t h, we

-26-


27/60

r ecogni zed i n Gr ay t hat i t i s not i mpr oper f or a pr osecut or t o

st r i ke pot ent i al j ur or s si mpl y because t hey ar e "peopl e of col or . "

See i d. at 305 n. 5 ( not i ng t hat al t hough "ei t her Af r i can- Amer i cans

or Hi spani cs const i t ut e a ' cogni zabl e gr oup' f or Bat son pur poses[ , ]

. . . t hat i s a di f f er ent quest i on f r om whet her ' mi nor i t i es'

const i t ut e such a gr oup. " ) Thus, t he Commonweal t h asser t s i n i t s

br i ef t hat Sanchez "di d not pr esent t o t he MAC or t o t he SJ C t he

speci f i c cl ai m of a di scr i mi nat or y pat t er n of excl udi ng young,

Af r i can- Amer i can men f r omt he j ur y, " and has, t her ef or e, f ai l ed t o

exhaust t hat cl ai m. We do not agr ee wi t h t he pr emi se of t he

Commonweal t h' s ar gument .

Fi r st , Gr ay i s of l i t t l e assi st ance t o t he Commonweal t h,

as t he case si mpl y di d not concer n exhaust i on of r emedi es. Gr ay

addr essed a si t uat i on i n whi ch t he def endant at t empt ed to est abl i sh

a pr i ma f aci e case of di scr i mi nat i on agai nst a pr ospect i ve Lat i no

j uror based sol el y on t he cour t ' s previ ous f i ndi ng t hat t he

pr osecut or ' s per empt or y chal l enges agai nst Af r i can Amer i cans had

been r aci al l y mot i vat ed. I d. at 302- 03. Gr ay ar gued t he pr evi ous

st r i kes agai nst Af r i can Amer i cans demonst r at ed t hat t he pr osecut or

was di scr i mi nat i ng agai nst "mi nor i t i es, " such t hat t he subsequent

chal l enge of t he Lat i no j ur or shoul d be di sal l owed. I d. at 305.

I n r ej ect i ng Gr ay' s Bat son chal l enge, we det er mi ned t hat

he f ai l ed t o pr esent any "f actual suppor t " f or hi s cl ai m t hat

"mi nor i t i es" r epr esent a "cogni zabl e gr oup" f or pur poses of hi s

-27-


28/60

Bat son chal l enge. I d. at 306. Af t er revi ewi ng r el evant deci si ons

of our si st er ci r cui t s, we det er mi ned t hat "wi t h no evi dent i ar y

showi ng what soever , we cannot assume t hat ' mi nor i t i es' const i t ut e

t he ' cogni zabl e gr oup' essent i al t o showi ng t hat t he pr osecut or

i nt ent i onal l y di scr i mi nat ed agai nst such a gr oup i n hi s or her use

of per empt or y chal l enges i n vi ol at i on of Bat son. " I d. Thus, we

concl uded t hat Gr ay f ai l ed t o make out a pr i ma f aci e Bat son case.

I n sum, Gr ay repr esent ed an appl i cat i on of Bat son pr i nci pl es and i s

i nappl i cabl e to t he quest i on as t o whet her Sanchez has present ed a

consi st ent cl ai m so as t o sat i sf y t he exhaust i on r equi r ement

appl i cabl e t o hi s habeas pet i t i on. 9

Fur t hermor e, al t hough t he Commonweal t h expends much

energy at t empt i ng t o convi nce us t hat Sanchez di d not exhaust hi s

st ate remedi es because he obj ected t o the excl usi on of one gr oup or

anot her of pr ospect i ve j ur or s ( e. g. , men "of col or " or "young,

9 We note t hat i n Gr ay we st ated an "essent i al " el ement ofGr ay' s par t i cul ar Bat son cl ai m i s a showi ng t hat t he "pr osecut ori nt ent i onal l y di scr i mi nat ed agai nst such a [ cogni zabl e] gr oup i nhi s or her use of per empt or y chal l enges. " Gr ay, 592 F. 3d at 306.I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, we r el i ed upon our pr i or opi ni ons i nMur chu v. Uni t ed St at es, 926 F. 2d 50 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) and Uni t edSt at es v. Mar i no, 277 F. 3d 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) , al ong wi t h sever alcases f r omour si st er ci r cui t s, al l of whi ch wer e deci ded pr i or t oSnyder . Snyder v. Loui si ana, 552 U. S. 472 ( 2008)

I n t he wake of Snyder , a def endant need onl y show t hat asi ngl e perempt or y chal l enge was exer ci sed on t he basi s of r ace i nor der t o make out an equal pr ot ect i on vi ol at i on, r egar dl ess of t her ace of t he def endant or t he pr ospect i ve j ur or . See i d. at 478.Whi l e a def endant may meet hi s bur den by showi ng a pat t ern ofdi scr i mi nat i on agai nst a "cogni zabl e gr oup, " t hi s i s but one ofsever al concei vabl e opt i ons.

-28-


29/60

bl ack men") bef ore di f f erent cour t s, Sanchez made onl y one Batson

obj ect i on at t r i al . 10 Fr omt hat t i me, Sanchez ar gued t o each st at e

cour t t hat t he Commonweal t h' s chal l enge of J ur or No. 261 was

i mpr oper because i t was based upon hi s r ace. To t he ext ent t he

exact wordi ng of Sanchez' s argument s may have var i ed over t i me, we

have l ong hel d t hat "a pet i t i oner need not expr ess hi s f eder al

cl ai ms i n pr eci sel y the same t er ms i n bot h t he st at e and f eder al

cour t s" i n or der t o have sat i sf i ed t he exhaust i on r equi r ement .

Bar r esi v. Mal oney, 296 F. 3d 48, 51- 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( ci t i ng

Pi car d v. Connor , 404 U. S. 270, 277- 78 ( 1971) ) . Accor di ngl y, we

ar e sat i sf i ed t hat Sanchez has espoused t he same "l egal t heor y"

t hr oughout . Cl ement s, 485 F. 3d at 162.

The onl y r emai ni ng quest i on wi t h r espect t o exhaust i on i s

whet her Sanchez suf f i ci ent l y al er t ed t he Massachuset t s cour t s t o

t he f ederal natur e of hi s cl ai m. Whi l e t he Commonweal t h has not

ar gued t hat Sanchez f ai l ed t o do so i n t he st at e cour t s, we

consi der i t her e as par t of our " f r esh l ook" at t he i ssue. See

Gr anberr y v. Gr eer , 481 U. S. 129, 134 ( 1987) .

We begi n wi t h t he t r i al l evel . I mmedi at el y af t er t he

Commonweal t h st r uck J ur or No. 261, def ense counsel advi sed t he

10 Al t hough Sanchez mai nt ai ns on appeal t hat he i s obj ect i ngt o the excl usi on of al l t hr ee young, bl ack men, gi ven t he j ur ysel ect i on pr ocess ut i l i zed i n t hi s case, Sanchez wai ved anyobj ect i on t o t he Commonweal t h' s per empt or y st r i kes agai nst J ur or sNo. 201 and 227 by f ai l i ng t o obj ect t o t hose st r i kes at t he t i met hey wer e exer ci sed. Thus, we l i mi t our i nqui r y t o t he equalpr ot ect i on cl ai m he advances on behal f of J ur or No. 261.

-29-


30/60

t r i al j udge t hat wi t h i t s l at est chal l enge t he Commonweal t h "has,

now, exerci sed [ perempt ory] chal l enges agai nst a l arge number of

Af r i can Amer i can[ s] . " He al so expr essed hi s opi ni on t hat no non-

di scr i mi nat or y r eason expl ai ned t he st r i ke. The pr osecut or asked

whether Sanchez was "maki ng a Batson- Soar es chal l enge, " r ef er r i ng

t o t he l eadi ng f eder al and Massachuset t s cases on di scr i mi nat or y

use of perempt ory chal l enges. See Soar es v. Commonweal t h, 377

Mass. 461 ( 1979) . Def ense counsel conf i r med he was i n f act

obj ect i ng t o t he per empt or y st r i ke. Lat er i n t he col l oquy, t he

pr osecut or agai n r ef er enced bot h "Soar es and Bat son. "

Si gni f i cant l y, t he exper i enced t r i al j udge11 di d not

quest i on what t he part i es meant by a "Batson- Soar es" chal l enge,

whi ch suggest s he was wel l aware of both cases and t hei r hol di ngs.

I ndeed, i t i s exceedi ngl y common f or at t or neys and j udges t o use

case names as shor t - hand r ef er ences t o thei r hol di ngs and t he l egal

concept s underpi nni ng t hem. We have no r eason t o doubt t hat t hi s

i s exact l y what happened her e and that t he t r i al j udge was

cogni zant of t he f eder al aspect of Sanchez' s cl ai m. Based on t he

f or egoi ng, we f i nd t hat Sanchez f ai r l y pr esent ed t he t r i al j udge

wi t h hi s cl ai m t hat t he Commonweal t h' s per empt or y chal l enge of

J uror No. 261 vi ol at ed t he equal prot ect i on pr i nci pl es of t he

Four t eenth Amendment .

11 We t ake j udi ci al not i ce t hat t he t r i al j udge was appoi nt edt o t he Massachuset t s Super i or Cour t i n 1990 and r et i r ed i n 2012.

-30-


31/60

Sanchez al so pr esent ed hi s f eder al cl ai m i n hi s st at e

appeal s. A l i t i gant sat i sf i es t he f ai r pr esent ment r equi r ement by

i dent i f yi ng a cl ai m as f eder al i n hi s or her br i ef t o a stat e

appel l at e cour t . Cl ement s, 485 F. 3d at 168 ( ci t i ng Bal dwi n v.

Reese, 541 U. S. 27, 32 ( 2004) ) . Thi s can be accompl i shed by

r ef er enci ng an amendment t o t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on, i d. ,

"or by si mpl y l abel i ng t he cl ai m ' f eder al . ' " Bal dwi n, 541 U. S. at

32. Sanchez' s br i ef s t o t he MAC and t he SJ C bot h r ef er enced t he

Four t eent h Amendment i n general and Batson i n part i cul ar , and he

di scussed f eder al case l aw and hi s i nt er pr et at i on of Four t eent h

Amendment r equi r ement s. Hi s i n- dept h t r eat ment of t he f ederal

cl ai m i n hi s br i ef s easi l y sat i sf i es the "f ai r pr esent ment "

st andard.

Af t er t aki ng a f r esh l ook at t he i ssue, we f i nd Sanchez

exhaust ed hi s st at e r emedi es by "f ai r l y and r ecogni zabl y"

pr esent i ng hi s f eder al cl ai mt o t he Massachuset t s cour t s. Casel l a,

207 F. 3d at 20. I t f ol l ows t hat hi s habeas pet i t i on i s pr oper l y

bef or e us.

4. Merits of Sanchez's Habeas Petition

i. General Habeas Principles

Havi ng cl ear ed t he decks of t he pr el i mi nar y i ssues, we

t ur n our at t ent i on t o t he mer i t s of Sanchez' s habeas pet i t i on. We

begi n wi t h t he AEDPA' s st atut ory f r amework, 28 U. S. C. 2241 et

-31-


32/60

seq. "[ A] ci r cui t j udge . . . shal l ent er t ai n an appl i cat i on f or

a wr i t of habeas cor pus [ o] n behal f of a per son i n cust ody pur suant

t o t he j udgment of a St at e cour t onl y on t he gr ound t hat he i s i n

cust ody i n vi ol at i on of t he Const i t ut i on or l aw or t r eat i es of t he

Uni t ed St at es. " 28 U. S. C. 2254( a) . A habeas pet i t i on

shal l not be gr ant ed wi t h r espect t o any cl ai mt hat was adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s i n St at ecour t pr oceedi ngs unl ess t he adj udi cat i on oft he cl ai m

( 1) r esul t ed i n a deci si on t hatwas cont r ar y t o, or i nvol ved anunr easonabl e appl i cat i on of ,

cl ear l y est abl i shed Feder al l aw,as det er mi ned by t he Supr emeCour t of t he Uni t ed St at es; or

( 2) r esul t ed i n a deci si on t hatwas based on an unr easonabl edet er mi nat i on of t he f act s i nl i ght of t he evi dence pr esent edi n t he St at e cour t pr oceedi ng.

28 U. S. C. 2254( d) . "Feder al habeas exi st s to r escue t hose i n

cust ody f r om t he f ai l ur e t o appl y f eder al r i ght s, cor r ect l y or at

al l . " Nadworny, 872 F. 2d at 1096. The Supreme Cour t has

r epeat edl y hel d t hat t he habeas st andard embodi ed i n Sect i on

2254( d) i s "di f f i cul t t o meet , " and t hat t he st at ut e act s as a

l i mi t at i on upon t he aut hor i t y of f eder al cour t s t hat "al l f eder al

j udges must obey. " Whi t e v. Woodal l , 134 S. Ct . 1697, 1701- 02

( 2014) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

"A st at e cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat a cl ai m l acks mer i t

pr ecl udes f eder al habeas r el i ef so l ong as ' f ai r mi nded j ur i st s

-32-


33/60

coul d di sagr ee' on t he cor r ect ness of t he st at e cour t ' s deci si on. "

Har r i ngt on v. Ri cht er , 131 S. Ct . 770, 786 ( 2011) . Such a f i ndi ng

i s a pr econdi t i on t o t he gr ant of any f or m of habeas r el i ef , as

"habeas cor pus i s a guar d agai nst ext r eme mal f unct i ons i n t he st at e

cr i mi nal j ust i ce syst ems, not a subst i t ut e f or or di nar y er r or

cor r ect i on t hr ough appeal . " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed. ) I n sum, a pet i t i oner bear s t he bur den of demonst r at i ng

"t hat t he st at e cour t ' s r ul i ng on t he cl ai m. . . was so l acki ng i n

j ust i f i cat i on t hat t her e was an er r or wel l under st ood and

compr ehended i n exi st i ng l aw beyond any possi bi l i t y of

di sagr eement . " I d. at 786- 87.

These ar e not t he onl y l i mi t at i ons wi t h r espect t o habeas

pet i t i ons. We shal l addr ess addi t i onal condi t i ons as necessar y.

ii. Clearly Established Federal Law

Pur suant t o Sect i on 2254( d) ( 1) , f eder al cour t s ar e

pr ohi bi t ed f r omgr ant i ng habeas rel i ef unl ess t he pet i t i oner shows

t hat t he st at e cour t ' s deci si on i nvol ved "cl ear l y est abl i shed

Feder al l aw" and was ei t her " cont r ary t o" or an "unr easonabl e

appl i cat i on of " t hat l aw. Thal er v. Haynes, 559 U. S. 43, 47 ( 2010)

( per cur i am) . Because a pet i t i oner i s r equi r ed t o demonst r at e t hat

hi s cl ai mi nvol ves "cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw" r egar dl ess of

whet her t he st at e cour t ' s deci si on i s al l eged t o be "cont r ar y t o"

or an "unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of " f eder al l aw, we begi n our

-33-


34/60

i nqui r y t her e. I n t he cont ext of t hi s case, Sanchez must show t hat

Bat son- - and t he pr oposi t i on t hat a pr osecut or may not exer ci se

per empt or y chal l enges on t he basi s of r ace- - const i t ut ed cl ear l y

est abl i shed f eder al l aw at t he t i me hi s convi ct i on became f i nal i n

2011. 12

"Cl ear l y est abl i shed Feder al l aw f or pur poses of

2254( d) ( 1) i ncl udes onl y t he hol di ngs, as opposed t o t he di ct a, of

[ t he Supr eme] Cour t ' s deci si ons. " Whi t e, 134 S. Ct . at 1702

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Thal er , 559 U. S. at 47

( "A l egal pr i nci pl e i s ' cl ear l y est abl i shed' wi t hi n t he meani ng of

t hi s pr ovi si on onl y when i t i s embodi ed i n a hol di ng of t hi s

Cour t . ") . I n eval uat i ng whet her a pr i nci pl e of f eder al l aw i s

"cl ear l y est abl i shed, " we must l ook t o cases deci ded by t he Supr eme

Cour t r at her t han our own case l aw. I d. at 1702 n. 2. Fur t her , we

conf i ne our i nqui r y t o t he st at e of f eder al l aw "as of t he t i me of

t he r el evant st at e- cour t deci si on. " Wi l l i ams v. Tayl or , 529 U. S.

362, 412 ( 2000) .

The par t i es ar e i n appar ent agr eement t hat Bat son set s

f or t h "cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw. " Sanchez has not br i ef ed

t hat speci f i c i ssue, and t he Commonweal t h expl i ci t l y st at es t hat i t

does. We agr ee as wel l .

12 The MAC i ssued i t s opi ni on on Apr i l 1, 2011, and t he SJ Cdeni ed Sanchez' s appl i cat i on f or f ur t her appel l at e r evi ew on J une29, 2011. Our det er mi nat i on of t he st at e of cl ear l y est abl i shedf eder al l aw i s t he same r egar dl ess of whi ch dat e i s ut i l i zed.

-34-


35/60

When i t was deci ded, Bat son made cl ear t hat perempt ory

chal l enges may not be exer ci sed on t he basi s of r ace. And i n

r ecogni zi ng t hat "[ e] xcl usi on of bl ack ci t i zens f r om ser vi ce as

j uror s const i t utes a pr i mar y exampl e of t he evi l t he Four t eent h

Amendment was desi gned t o cure, " Bat son di d not announce a new

pr i nci pl e of f eder al l aw. 476 U. S. at 85. I nst ead, Bat son

harkened back t o t he Four t eent h Amendment i n order t o hi ghl i ght

t hi s l ongst andi ng pr i nci pl e' s vener abl e l i neage. Subsequent

Supr eme Cour t case l aw has onl y rei nf orced Bat son' s hol di ng,

cul mi nat i ng i n Snyder ' s adopt i on i n 2008 of t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t ' s

st at ement t hat "[ t ] he Const i t ut i on f or bi ds st r i ki ng even a si ngl e

pr ospect i ve j ur or f or a di scr i mi nat or y pur pose. " Snyder , 552 U. S.

at 478 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Vasquez- Lopez, 22 F. 3d 900, 902

( 9t h Ci r . 1994) ) . I t i s di f f i cul t t o i magi ne a f or mul at i on of t hi s

pr i nci pl e t hat coul d be any mor e di r ect or expl i ci t . We al so f i nd

i t si gni f i cant t hat Snyder r esul t ed i n t he Supr eme Cour t ' s on- t he-

mer i t s r ever sal of a st at e cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat cer t ai n per empt or y

chal l enges wer e not mot i vat ed by r aci al di scr i mi nat i on, i d. at

486, demonst r at i ng t hat t he Supr eme Cour t consi ders Batson and i t s

appl i cat i on t o const i t ut e cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw.

Accor di ngl y, we f i nd t hat at t he t i me Sanchez' s convi ct i on became

f i nal i n 2011, i t was cl ear l y est abl i shed as a mat t er of f eder al

l aw t hat a pr osecut or i s pr ohi bi t ed f r om exer ci si ng chal l enges on

t he basi s of r ace.

-35-


36/60

iii. Unreasonable Application of Clearly Established

Federal Law

We must now consi der whet her t he MAC' s deci si on was

cont r ar y t o or r epr esent ed an unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of cl ear l y

est abl i shed f eder al l aw. 13 When r evi ewi ng a st at e cour t ' s

appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw, we ar e cogni zant t hat "st at e cour t s

must r easonabl y appl y t he rul es ' squar el y est abl i shed' by [ t he

Supr eme] Cour t ' s hol di ngs t o t he f act s of each case. " Whi t e, 134

S. Ct . at 1709 ( quot i ng Knowl es v. Mi r zayance, 556 U. S. 111, 122

( 2009) ) . " [ U] nder t he ' unr easonabl e appl i cat i on' cl ause, a f eder al

habeas cour t may gr ant t he wr i t i f t he st at e cour t i dent i f i es t he

cor r ect gover ni ng l egal pr i nci pl e f r om t hi s Cour t ' s deci si ons but

unr easonabl y appl i es t hat pr i nci pl e t o t he f act s of t he pr i soner ' s

case. ' " Wi l l i ams, 529 U. S. at 413.

However , gi ven t he l evel of def er ence r equi r ed by the

habeas st atut e, we may not gr ant habeas r el i ef si mpl y because we

di sagr ee wi t h a st at e cour t ' s r easoni ng or f eel t hat i t r eached an

i ncor r ect r esul t . "[ A] n unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw i s

di f f er ent f r om an i ncor r ect appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw. " I d. at

410. For us t o f i nd t hat a st at e cour t unr easonabl y appl i ed

13 The SJ C summar i l y deni ed Sanchez' s appl i cat i on f or f ur t herappel l at e r evi ew. As such, we "must ' l ook t hr ough t o t he l astr easoned deci si on' i n eval uat i ng t he basi s f or t he st at e cour t ' shol di ng. " Ki ng v. MacEacher n, 665 F. 3d 247, 252 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)( quot i ng Cl ement s v. Cl ar ke, 592 F. 3d 45, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) )( f ur t her ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Thus, we t ur n our at t ent i on t o t heMAC' s opi ni on.

-36-


37/60

f eder al l aw, i t s appl i cat i on "must be ' obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e, '

not mer el y wr ong; even ' cl ear err or ' wi l l not suf f i ce. " Whi t e, 134

S. Ct . at 1702, ( quot i ng Lockyer v. Andr ade, 538 U. S. 63, 75- 76

( 2003) ) .

Ci r cl i ng back t o Batson, t he Supr eme Cour t has "made i t

cl ear t hat i n consi der i ng a Bat son obj ect i on, or i n r evi ewi ng a

r ul i ng cl ai med t o be Bat son er r or , al l of t he ci r cumst ances t hat

bear upon t he i ssue of r aci al ani mosi t y must be consul t ed. "

Snyder , 552 U. S. at 478 ( ci t i ng Mi l l er - El I I , 545 U. S. at 239) .

Her e, t he MAC unr easonabl y appl i ed Bat son' s f i r st pr ong i n t hat i t

whol l y f ai l ed t o consi der al l of t he ci r cumst ances bear i ng on

pot ent i al r aci al di scr i mi nat i on. I nst ead, t he MAC di smi ssed t he

r aci al chal l enge out - of - hand by i t s f aci l e and mi sgui ded r esor t t o

t he undi sput ed f act t hat t he pr osecut or had al l owed some Af r i can

Amer i cans t o be seat ed on t he j ur y. See Sanchez, 79 Mass. App. Ct .

at 192.

Not abl y, t he MAC' s wr i t t en opi ni on r ej ect ed Sanchez' s

r aci al di scri mi nat i on cl ai m i n a si ngl e sent ence t hat mer el y

acknowl edged t he pr esence of other bl ack peopl e on t he j ur y. 14 I d.

The MAC i ndi cat ed any di scr i mi nat i on must have been based on age,

14 The MAC al so agr eed wi t h t he t r i al j udge that "per sons ofcol or " - - a gr oupi ng whi ch woul d have i ncl uded t he Lat i no j ur or t heCommonweal t h st r uck- - do not make up a "di scr et e aggr egat e gr oup"f or pur poses of i t s Soar es anal ysi s. I d. at 193. Al t hough t heLat i no j ur or al so possessed t he r i ght not t o be di scr i mi nat edagai nst on t he basi s of hi s r ace, Sanchez does not pr ess any cl ai mson hi s behal f .

-37-


38/60

not r ace, because t he pr osecut or al l owed a good number of potent i al

j uror s of mor e mat ure vi ntage t o be seated. See i d. at 193. Thi s,

i n ef f ect , r ecast Sanchez' s r ace- based chal l enge as an age- based

obj ect i on. The MAC gave no consi derat i on whatsoever t o Sanchez' s

argument t hat no nondi scr i mi natory reason expl ai ned why t he

pr osecut or st r uck J ur or No. 261 but not ot her pr ospect i ve j ur or s.

Thus, t he MAC di sr egar ded t he Supreme Cour t ' s exhor t at i on t hat i t

must consi der al l ci r cumst ances bear i ng on pot ent i al

di scri mi nat i on.

Fur t her , by f ocusi ng excl usi vel y on t he pr esence of ot her

Af r i can Amer i cans on t he j ur y at t he t i me of Sanchez' s Bat son

chal l enge, t he MAC i gnor ed J ur or No. 261' s r i ght not t o be

di scr i mi nat ed agai nst on account of hi s race. The MAC si mpl y

mi ssed t he cor e concer n addr essed i n t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

j ur i sprudence. Even mor e t r oubl i ng, t he MAC' s appl i cat i on of

Bat son sent t he unmi st akabl e message t hat a pr osecut or can get away

wi t h di scr i mi nat i ng agai nst some Af r i can Amer i cans ( and by

ext ensi on, i ndi vi dual s f r om any ot her et hni c backgr ound) on t he

veni r e: so l ong as a pr osecut or does not di scr i mi nat e agai nst al l

such i ndi vi dual s, not onl y wi l l hi s st r i kes be per mi t t ed, but he

wi l l not even be r equi r ed t o expl ai n t hem. Per ver sel y, t hi s

appl i cat i on may wel l l ead t o i ncreased r aci al di scr i mi nat i on i n

j ury sel ect i on, a r esul t di amet r i cal l y opposed t o Bat son' s cor e

r at i onal e t hat "[ a] per sons' s r ace si mpl y ' i s unr el at ed t o hi s

-38-


39/60

f i t ness as a j ur or . ' " Bat son, 476 U. S. at 87 ( quot i ng Thi el v. S.

Pac. Co. , 328 U. S. 217, 227 ( 1946) ( Fr ankf ur t er , J . , di ssent i ng) ) .

Al l i n al l , t her e can be no doubt t hat t he MAC f ai l ed t o

i nqui r e i nt o al l of t he f act s and ci r cumst ances r el evant t o

Sanchez' s cl ai m of r aci al di scr i mi nat i on. I t f ol l owed up by

appl yi ng Bat son' s f i r st pr ong i n such a way as t o per mi t i ncr eased

r aci al di scr i mi nat i on. The MAC' s t r eat ment of Sanchez' s Bat son

cl ai m was mor e t han cl ear l y er r oneous: i t was obj ect i vel y

unr easonabl e i n l i ght of cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw. See

Whi t e, 134 S. Ct . at 1701. No f ai r mi nded j ur i st coul d come t o any

ot her concl usi on based on t he stat e of cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al

l aw at t he t i me of t he MAC' s opi ni on.

Because we hol d that t he MAC unr easonabl y appl i ed cl ear l y

est abl i shed f eder al l aw, i t i s unnecessar y f or us t o separ at el y

addr ess whet her t he MAC' s concept i on of Bat son' s t hr ee- st ep i nqui r y

was "cont r ar y t o" cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw. See Thal er , 559

U. S. at 47 ( r ecogni zi ng t hat habeas may be gr ant ed where a st ate

cour t ' s deci si on i s ei t her "cont r ar y to" or r epr esent s an

-39-


40/60

"unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of " cl ear l y est abl i shed f eder al l aw) . 15

iv. Application of Batson's First Prong

That t he MAC unr easonabl y appl i ed t he f i r st Bat son prong

does not necessar i l y ent i t l e Sanchez t o pr evai l on hi s habeas

cl ai m. See Aspen, 480 F. 3d at 576. Sanchez must st i l l "show t hat

hi s under l yi ng det ent i on i s unl awf ul and not j ust t hat t he st at e

cour t empl oyed f aul t y r easoni ng i n hi s case. " I d. ( ci t i ng

Br onsht ei n v. Hor n, 404 F. 3d 700, 724 ( 3d Ci r . 2005) ) . I t i s

15 I n r el i ance on st ate l aw, t he MAC r equi r ed Sanchez t o makea showi ng t hat t he pr osecut or ' s st r i kes wer e "l i kel y" mot i vat ed byr ace. Sanchez, 79 Mass. App. Ct . at 192. I n t he past , we haveconcl uded a st at e cour t t hat r equi r ed a def endant t o show i t was"l i kel y" t hat a pr osecut or ' s st r i ke was i mpr oper l y mot i vat ed" j udged [ t he def endant ' s] pr i ma f aci e bur den by a mor e r i gi dst andar d t han t hat est abl i shed by Bat son, " whi ch "cl ear l yest abl i shed t hat [ t he def endant ] was onl y requi r ed t o make a' l i kel i hood' showi ng at t he f i nal st age of t he bur den- shi f t i ng

f r amewor k. " Aspen v. Bi ssonnet t e, 480 F. 3d 571, 575 ( 1st Ci r .2007) .Nowhere, however , di d t he MAC i ndi cat e t hat Sanchez was

r equi r ed t o make a "mor e l i kel y t han not " showi ng t o est abl i sh i spr i ma f aci e case, and t he SJ C has never hel d t hat a "mor e l i kel yt han not " showi ng i s r equi r ed t o make out a pr i ma f aci e case underSoar es. Thus, i t i s by no means cl ear t hat t he t er m " l i kel y" asused i n Soar es means "mor e l i kel y t han not . " Mor eover , t heMassachuset t s Decl ar at i on of Ri ght s i s i nt ended t o "pr ovi de[ ] atl east as much pr ot ect i on f or [ a] def endant as does Bat son. "Cal dwel l v. Mal oney, 159 F. 3d 639, 643 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) . Thi sf ur t her wei ghs agai nst our i nt er pr et i ng Soar es t o r equi r e a "mor e

l i kel y than not " showi ng, as we doubt t he SJ C woul d i nt er pr etSoar es t o r equi r e such a showi ng now i n l i ght of t he cl ear l yest abl i shed f eder al l aw. As i t t ur ns out , gi ven our concl usi ont hat t he MAC unr easonabl y appl i ed Bat son t o t he f act s of Sanchez' scase, we need not det er mi ne her e whet her t he MAC appl i ed ani mpr oper st andard or i mposed upon hi m a heavi er bur den t han doesf eder al l aw.

-40-


41/60

concei vabl e t hat Sanchez may not be ent i t l ed t o r el i ef despi t e t he

MAC' s unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of Bat son' s f i r st pr ong. Thi s woul d

be t he case i f t he f act s and ci r cumst ances i n t he r ecor d do not

gi ve r i se t o an i nf er ence of di scr i mi nat i on when Bat son' s f i r st

pr ong i s pr oper l y appl i ed. We t ur n now t o t hi s i nqui r y,

"l i mi t [ i ng] our r evi ew t o f act s gl eaned f r omt he st at e cour t r ecor d

concer ni ng j ur y sel ect i on at [ Sanchez' s] t r i al . " I d.

Sanchez ar gues t hat t he evi dence i n t he recor d shows t he

Commonweal t h chal l enged J uror No. 261, and t he ot her t wo young

bl ack men, because of t hei r " r ace/ gender " combi nat i on. Sanchez,

whi l e f r eel y admi t t i ng t hat a pr osecut or may excl ude al l young

j uror s, mai ntai ns t hat i t i s unconst i t ut i onal f or a prosecutor t o

"excuse young j ur ors onl y i f t hey are young bl ack men, or because

of membershi p i n any ot her di scr ete gr oup pr otected by t he

Four t eent h Amendment . " Accordi ng t o Sanchez, t hi s i s exact l y what

happened here, wi t h t he pr osecut or st r i ki ng young bl ack men not

because t hey were young, but because t hey were bl ack. Sanchez goes

on t o asser t t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al because of t hi s

consti t ut i onal vi ol at i on.

The Commonweal t h concedes t hat t he exi st ence of a pr i ma

f aci e case i s t o be det er mi ned based on t he t ot al i t y of t he f act s

and ci r cumst ances, but ar gues t hat we have " l ar gel y l ef t t he

quest i on of what const i t ut es a pr i ma f aci e case t o t he wi sdom of

t he t r i al j udges themsel ves. " Br ewer v. Mar shal l , 119 F. 3d 993,

-41-


42/60

1004 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) . I t goes on t o def end t he MAC' s deci si on as

cor r ect because f i ve Af r i can Amer i cans had been seat ed at t he t i me

of Sanchez' s Bat son chal l enge. Thei r pr esence, at l east accor di ng

t o t he Commonweal t h' s br i ef , demonst r at es t hat " t her e i s no basi s

i n t he r ecor d t o concl ude t hat t he pr osecut or exer ci sed hi s

perempt ory chal l enges on t he basi s of r ace. " The Commonweal t h

f ur t her ar gues t hat yout h i s not a suspect cl ass f or pur poses of a

Bat son anal ysi s and, f or t hat mat t er , nei t her i s t he gr oup of young

Af r i can- Amer i can men. I n addi t i on, t he Commonweal t h poi nt s t o i t s

st r i ke of J ur or No. 229, a young whi t e man who was a col l ege

sophomore, as demonst r at i ng t hat t he pr osecut or was not onl y

st r i ki ng young Af r i can- Amer i can men f r om t he j ur y.

I t st r i kes us t hat many of t he par t i es' ar gument s are

gear ed pr i mar i l y t owar ds st ep t hr ee of t he Bat son t est . Sanchez

st r enuousl y at t empt s t o convi nce us t hat t he pr osecut or ' s st r i kes

wer e raci al l y mot i vat ed, whi l e the Commonweal t h st at es j ust as

f or cef ul l y t hat t hey wer e not . These t ypes of ar gument s ar e not

over l y hel pf ul her e, however , because Bat son' s t hi r d st ep i s not at

i ssue: t he t r i al j udge never pr oceeded beyond st ep one.

Accor di ngl y, we revi ew t he st at e cour t r ecor d de novo t o det er mi ne

whet her Sanchez sat i sf i ed hi s bur den of r ai si ng an i nf er ence of

possi bl e r aci al di scr i mi nat i on. See Aspen, 480 F. 3d at 576. 16 I f

16 We r ej ect as i nconsi st ent wi t h our case l aw t heCommonweal t h' s content i on t hat Sanchez i s r equi r ed t o overcome t heMAC' s f i ndi ng by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence gi ven t hat t he MAC

-42-


43/60

we f i nd t hat he has, we wi l l t hen addr ess t he Commonweal t h' s

argument s t hat t he i nf erence i s negated by other ci r cumst ances

appear i ng i n t he r ecor d.

Under f eder al l aw, " [ t ] o est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case,

t he movi ng par t y must ' r ai se an i nf er ence t hat t he pr osecut or used

[ per empt or y chal l enges] t o excl ude the veni r emen f r om t he pet i t

j ury' because of t hei r member shi p i n a prot ect ed cl ass . " I d. at

574 ( second al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Bat son, 476 U. S. at

96) . "An ' i nf er ence' i s gener al l y under st ood t o be a ' concl usi on

r eached by consi der i ng ot her f act s and deduci ng a l ogi cal

consequence f r omt hem. ' " J ohnson v. Cal i f or ni a, 545 U. S. 162, 168

n. 4 ( 2005) ( quot i ng Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y 781 ( 7t h ed. 1999) ) .

Sanchez' s bur den at t hi s f i r st st age "i s not subst ant i al . " Aspen,

480 F. 3d at 574. I ndeed, st ep one i s sat i sf i ed wher e t he

ci r cumst ances per mi t an i nf er ence t hat "di scr i mi nat i on may have

occur r ed. " J ohnson, 545 U. S. at 173 ( emphasi s added) . 17

unr easonabl y appl i ed f eder al l aw i n f ai l i ng t o consi der al l of t heci r cumst ances r el evant t o r aci al di scr i mi nat i on.

17 The r el at i vel y bar e- bones showi ng r equi r ed at t hi s st ageper haps expl ai ns our past exhor t at i on t o t he t r i al cour t s t o seekan expl anat i on f or a pr osecut or ' s use of per empt or y chal l enges evenwher e t he j udge may not bel i eve such a showi ng has been made, ascounsel ' s expl anat i on f aci l i t at es appel l at e r evi ew and may even

ser ve t o avoi d r ever sal shoul d we concl ude a suf f i ci ent pr i ma f aci eshowi ng had been made. See Uni t ed St ates v. Bergodere, 40 F. 3d512, 517 n. 4 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( " [ I ] t mi ght have been wi se f ort he j udge t o have asked t he pr osecut or t o pr of f er an expl i ci tst at ement of t he basi s f or t he st r i ke, i f onl y t o conf i r m t hej udge' s i ntui t i on and f l esh out t he r ecor d on appeal . " ) . Ther ecor d here demonst r at es Sanchez and t he Commonweal t h wer e

-43-


44/60

" [ A] pr i ma f aci e case of di scr i mi nat i on can be made out

by of f er i ng a wi de var i et y of evi dence. " I d. at 169. Al t hough t he

Supr eme Cour t has not pr ovi ded an exhaust i ve l i st i ng of t he types

of evi dence t hat may suf f i ce, we ar e gui ded by t he exampl es set

f or t h i n i t s cases and ot her s appl yi ng Bat son. Fi r st , t he

def endant i s "ent i t l ed t o r el y on t he f act , as t o whi ch t her e can

be no di sput e, t hat per empt or y chal l enges const i t ut e a j ur y

sel ect i on pr act i ce t hat per mi t s ' t hose t o di scr i mi nat e who ar e of

a mi nd t o di scr i mi nat e. ' " Bat son, 476 U. S. at 96 ( quot i ng Aver y,

345 U. S. at 562) . Second, demonst r at i ng a pat t er n of st r i kes

agai nst members of a cogni zabl e gr oup may r ai se an i nf erence of

di scr i mi nat i on agai nst a par t i cul ar j ur or . Uni t ed St at es v. De

Gr oss, 913 F. 2d 1417, 1425 ( 9t h Ci r . 1990) ( concl udi ng t he

def endant ' s use of seven out of t he al l ot t ed ei ght per empt or y

chal l enges agai nst mal es suf f i ced t o r ai se an i nf er ence of gender

di scri mi nat i on) . I n a si mi l ar vei n, ot her f actor s appr opr i at e f or

consi der at i on i ncl ude " t he number of st r i kes i nvol ved i n t he

obj ect ed- t o conduct ; t he nat ur e of t he pr osecut or ' s ot her st r i kes;

and, as t he ' capst one, ' t he pr esence of an al t er nat i ve, r ace-

neut r al expl anat i on f or t he st r i ke. " Uni t ed St at es v. Gi r ouar d,

r epr esent ed at t r i al by ski l l ed and zeal ous counsel . Whi l e we f i ndi t di f f i cul t t o f aul t t he pr osecut or f or f ai l i ng t o vol unt eeri nf or mat i on not r equi r ed of hi m by t he t r i al j udge, havi ng done socoul d have r esul t ed i n a f ul l y f l eshed- out r ecor d and, pot ent i al l y,avoi ded t he r esul t t hat obt ai ns t oday.

-44-


45/60

521 F. 3d 110, 115- 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Ber goder e, 40 F. 3d 512, 516- 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) .

Al so, and of gr eat i mpor t ance her e, we t ake i nt o account

"whet her si mi l ar l y si t uat ed j ur or s f r om out si de t he al l egedl y

t ar get ed gr oup wer e per mi t t ed t o serve" on t he j ur y i n r ul i ng on a

Batson chal l enge. Aspen, 480 F. 3d at 577 ( ci t i ng Boyd v. Newl and,

467 F. 3d 1139, 1148- 50 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Char l t on, 600 F. 3d 43, 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( r evi ewi ng t he r ecor d t o

det er mi ne i f t her e was evi dence "t hat si mi l ar l y si t uat ed j ur or s

( at t or neys, member s of cl er gy, or r el at i ves of convi ct s) f r om

out si de t he al l egedl y t ar get ed gr oup of Af r i can- Amer i cans wer e

per mi t t ed t o serve") . I ndeed, t he Supr eme Cour t put s gr eat st ock

i n t hi s f actor . Mi l l er - El I I , 545 U. S. at 241 ( "Mor e power f ul t han

[ t he] bar e st at i st i cs, however , ar e si de- by- si de compar i sons of

some bl ack veni r e panel i st s who wer e st r uck and whi t e panel i st s

al l owed t o serve. " ) . We gi ve wei ght as wel l t o whet her t her e ar e

any "appar ent nondi scr i mi nat or y reasons f or st r i ki ng pot ent i al

j uror s based on t hei r voi r di r e answer s. " Aspen, 480 F. 3d at 577

( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. St ephens, 421 F. 3d 503, 515- 16 ( 7t h Ci r .

2005) ) .

We t ur n f i r st t o t he "number s- based" consi de

sanchez v. roden, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents