sanchez v. roden, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Sanchez v. Roden, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/27

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 15- 1197

DAGOBERTO SANCHEZ,

Pet i t i oner , Appel l ant ,

v.

GARY RODEN,

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 ore

Lynch, Thompson, and Kayat t a,

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 , Cr i mi nal

Bur eau, wi t h whomMaur a Heal ey, At t orney General of Massachuset t s,was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

December 7, 2015


2/27

- 2 -

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Thi s habeas cor pus pet i t i on comes

t o us agai n f ol l owi ng our pr evi ous opi ni on r emandi ng t o t he f eder al

di st r i ct cour t . Sanchez v. Roden ( Sanchez I ) , 753 F. 3d 279, 309

( 1st Ci r . 2014) . The pet i t i on cont est s t he st at e cour t ' s

concl usi on t hat t he st at e pr osecut or di d not vi ol at e t he Four t eent h

Amendment i n hi s exerci se of a perempt ory chal l enge dur i ng j ur y

sel ect i on f or Dagober t o Sanchez' s st at e t r i al on char ges of second-

degr ee mur der and unl awf ul possessi on of a f i r ear m. Sanchez

cont ends t hat t he chal l enge was i mper mi ssi bl y based on race.

Pr evi ousl y, t hi s cour t f ound t hat , cont r ar y t o t he st at e

cour t ' s r ul i ng, Sanchez had est abl i shed a pr i ma f aci e case of

r aci al di scr i mi nat i on under st ep one of t he f r amewor k est abl i shed

i n Bat son v. Kent ucky, 476 U. S. 79 ( 1986) . We r emanded t he case

t o t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng as t o

st eps t wo and t hr ee of Bat son. Af t er t hat hear i ng, whi ch i ncl uded

t est i mony f r om t he pr osecut or who exer ci sed t he chal l enge, t he

di st r i ct cour t r ul ed agai nst Sanchez on t he f i nal st ep of Bat son

and deni ed hi s pet i t i on. Sanchez v. Roden, No. 12- 10931, 2015 WL

461917 ( D. Mass. Feb. 4, 2015) . We af f i r m.

I .

We r eci t e onl y t he f act s necessary t o t hese habeas

pr oceedi ngs, as our pr evi ous opi ni on i n t hi s case descr i bes

Sanchez' s convi ct i on and di r ect appeal i n det ai l . I n 2005, Sanchez

was i ndi ct ed f or second- degr ee mur der and unl awf ul possessi on of


3/27

- 3 -

a f i r ear m. Dur i ng j ur y sel ecti on f or hi s t r i al , st at e pr osecut or

Mark Lee exer ci sed per empt ory chal l enges, as rel evant her e, t o

st r i ke t hr ee bl ack men age 25 or under ( J ur ors 201, 227, and 261) . 1

Af t er st r i ki ng J ur or s 201 and 227 but bef or e st r i ki ng J ur or 261,

a 19- year - ol d bl ack mal e col l ege st udent , Pr osecut or Lee seat ed

J uror 243, a 21- year - ol d whi t e mal e col l ege st udent born i n Russi a.

When Lee moved t o st r i ke J ur or 261, Sanchez' s def ense counsel

obj ect ed, ar gui ng t hat Lee was st r i ki ng young bl ack pot ent i al

j uror s on t he basi s of a combi nat i on of t hei r r ace, yout h, and

gender . The j udge r ul ed t hat Sanchez had not made a pr i ma f aci e

case of di scr i mi nat i on. Ul t i mat el y, t he i mpanel ed j ur y of si xt een

i ncl uded t hree bl ack women and t wo bl ack men. The j ury convi ct ed

Sanchez, and he was sent enced t o l i f e i mpr i sonment f or mur der ,

wi t h a concur r ent t wo- year sent ence on t he f i r ear m char ge.

On appeal t o t he Massachuset t s Appeal s Cour t , Sanchez

cont ended, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat Lee had i mpr oper l y exer ci sed

per empt ory chal l enges agai nst young "men of col or , " but t he st ate

appeal s cour t r ej ect ed that cont ent i on, Commonweal t h v. Sanchez,

944 N. E. 2d 625, 62829 (Mass. App. Ct . 2011) , and the Massachuset t s

Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t deni ed f ur t her r evi ew, Commonweal t h v.

Sanchez, 950 N. E. 2d 438 ( Mass. 2011) ( t abl e deci si on) . Sanchez

1 The r ecor d does not cl ear l y est abl i sh J ur or 201' s r ace,but gi ven i ndi cat i ons i n the st at e cour t pr oceedi ngs t hat he wasa "per son of col or , " we count hi m among t he bl ack j ur or s f or t hepur poses of our Bat son anal ysi s.


4/27

- 4 -

subsequent l y pet i t i oned f or a wr i t of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C.

2254 i n f eder al di st r i ct cour t . The di st r i ct cour t , det er mi ni ng

t he st at e cour t ' s appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw was r easonabl e, deni ed

t he pet i t i on. Sanchez v. Roden, No. 12- 10931, 2013 WL 593960, at

*6 ( D. Mass. Feb. 14, 2013) ( appl yi ng t he Batson f r amework) .

Thi s cour t di sagreed wi t h t he Massachuset t s Appeal s

Cour t and wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng. Sanchez I , 753 F. 3d

at 309. Thi s cour t hel d t hat t he st at e appeal s cour t ' s Bat son

anal ysi s had unr easonabl y f ocused on t he over al l r aci al

composi t i on of t he i mpanel ed j ur y, i gnor i ng evi dence of possi bl e

di scr i mi nat i on agai nst t he subset of young bl ack men. I d. at 299

300. Revi ewi ng t he r ecor d de novo, t he panel f ound t hat a pr i ma

f aci e case of r aci al di scri mi nat i on i n t he pr osecut i on' s

per empt ory chal l enge agai nst J ur or 261 had been est abl i shed under

Batson. Not i ng t hat Lee had not yet pr ovi ded a r eason f or t he

chal l enge, i d. at 307, t he panel r emanded t he case t o the f eder al

di st r i ct cour t t o compl et e t he Bat son i nqui r y, i d. at 308

( i nst r ucti ng t he di st r i ct cour t t o f ol l ow t he gui dance set f or t h

i n Peopl e v. J ohnson, 136 P. 3d 804, 808 ( Cal . 2006) ) .

On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d an evi dent i ar y

hear i ng on Sept ember 8, 2014, i n whi ch Lee al one t est i f i ed and was

subj ect to cross- exami nat i on by pet i t i oner ' s counsel . Lee

t est i f i ed t hat he chal l enged J ur or 261 - - t he 19- year - ol d bl ack

mal e - - and sever al ot her j ur or s, i ncl udi ng J ur or s 201, 227, and


5/27

- 5 -

229, a whi t e mal e col l ege st udent , because of t hei r yout h. He

st at ed t hat hi s gener al pr act i ce i s t o chal l enge young j ur or s,

such t hat when he r evi ews j ur y quest i onnai r es at t he begi nni ng of

j ury sel ect i on, "one of t he ver y f i r st t hi ngs" he l ooks at i s t he

age of pr ospect i ve j ur or s, whi ch he ci r cl es i n r ed.

Lee t est i f i ed t hat t he dynami cs of j ur y sel ect i on al so

pl ayed a "si gni f i cant r ol e" i n exer ci si ng chal l enges. He st at ed,

" I ' m al ways moni t or i ng how many per empt ory chal l enges I have l ef t

ver sus how many perempt ory chal l enges def ense counsel has l ef t and

al so i n consi der at i on of what I under st and t o be upcomi ng based

upon t he quest i onnai r es. " He expl ai ned, " t he more chal l enges t he

def ense has, t he mor e f l exi bl e t hey can be about exer ci si ng those

chal l enges, and, t her ef or e, I have t o be car ef ul about t he number

of chal l enges t hat I ' mexer ci si ng under t hose ci r cumst ances. " Lee

t est i f i ed t hat dur i ng i ndi vi dual quest i oni ng of t he pr ospect i ve

j uror s, he f l i pped t hrough t he j ury quest i onnai r es and a char t

t hat he kept t o t r ack whi ch j ur or s had been st r uck by whi ch par t y.

On cr oss- exami nat i on, he mai nt ai ned t hat he does t hi s " i n ever y

t r i al al l t he t i me" and i s " const ant l y l ooki ng t hr ough t he

quest i onnai r es. " He st at ed speci f i cal l y t hat hi s l ow number of

r emai ni ng chal l enges and " t he number of j ur or s t hat st i l l needed

t o be sel ect ed" i n combi nat i on al so mot i vat ed hi s choi ces r egar di ng

st r i ki ng J ur or 261 and keepi ng J ur or 243.


6/27

- 6 -

When asked t o expl ai n why he di d not chal l enge J ur or 243

- - t he 21- year - ol d whi t e mal e col l ege st udent f r om Russi a - - Lee

t est i f i ed t hat he was "r unni ng out of chal l enges. " He expl ai ned

t hat when he has f ew chal l enges r emai ni ng, he revi ews t he j ur y

"quest i onnai r es t o determi ne how many of t he r emai ni ng chal l enges

[ he i s] l i kel y to have t o use, " and he t hen accept s young j ur or s

based on i ndi cat i ons t hat "mi ght make t hem not f i t t hei r

chr onol ogi cal age. " I n t he case of J ur or 243, Lee st at ed, "I t ook

hi m, despi t e not want i ng t o t ake hi m, " as "he was bor n i n Moscow

. . . [ and] he came her e on hi s own to begi n hi s own educat i on,

and so I t hought i f I had t o t ake a young j ur or , t hat woul d be

somebody who mi ght be a bet t er candi dat e t han most . " On cr oss-

exami nat i on, Lee conceded t hat t her e was no way to know whet her

J uror 243 had grown up abroad, but he r ei t er at ed t hat he was

l ooki ng f or "somebody who has some l evel of matur i t y and l i f e

exper i ences, " and he thought J ur or 243 seemed "a l i t t l e bi t ol der

t han someone el se i n t er ms of l i f e exper i ence. "

Dur i ng cr oss- exami nat i on, Lee st at ed t hat t he onl y

"out ward" di f f erence between J ur or 243 and J ur or 261 was t hat one

was whi t e and t he ot her bl ack. The di st r i ct j udge t hen asked,

"Wel l , one was 19 and one was 21, r i ght , do I have t hat r i ght ?"

Both Sanchez' s counsel and Lee r esponded af f i r mat i vel y. The

f ol l owi ng col l oquy bet ween Sanchez' s counsel and Lee ensued:

Lee: Yes, [ J ur or 243] was t wo year s ol der .


7/27

- 7 -

Sanchez' s Counsel : But you chal l enged peopl ewho were ol der t han 21 f or age, di d you not ?

Lee: Yes. Ther e i s a di st i ncti on, but , as Isai d, my i ncl i nat i on woul d have been t o st r i ke[ J ur or 243] under al l t hi ngs bei ng equal .

Sanchez' s Counsel : So t he t wo year s was nott he def i ni ng di f f er ence f or you?

Lee: At t hat st age of t he game, ever y possi bl edi st i nct i on was r el evant .

Subsequent quest i oni ng t ur ned t o t he i mport ance of t r i al dynami cs

t o Lee' s choi ces.

I n a Febr uar y 4, 2015, or der , t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed

Sanchez' s habeas pet i t i on. I n r eachi ng i t s deci si on, t he di st r i ct

cour t consi der ed Lee' s t est i mony, or al ar gument by bot h par t i es,

t he Commonweal t h' s Suppl emental Answer t o t he 2012 habeas

pet i t i on, whi ch i ncl uded j ur y quest i onnai r es, as wel l as t he

par t i es' opposi ng memor anda of l aw. The cour t speci f i cal l y f ound

Lee' s demeanor "pr of essi onal and cr edi bl e t hr oughout . " At Bat son

st ep t wo, t he cour t concl uded t hat Lee' s t est i mony that he st r uck

J uror 261 because of hi s age was f aci al l y val i d and r ace- neut r al .

At Bat son st ep t hr ee, t he cour t f ocused on Lee' s t est i mony at t he

evi dent i ar y hear i ng. Recogni zi ng t he pr act i ce of st r i ki ng

pot ent i al j ur or s because of t hei r yout h as an accept ed t r i al

st r at egy, t he cour t credi t ed Lee' s expl anat i on of hi s deci si on t o

st r i ke J ur or 261 based on hi s age. As t o t he al l eged i nconsi st ency

i n Lee' s appl i cat i on of t hat pr act i ce, t he cour t credi t ed t wo


8/27

- 8 -

addi t i onal poi nt s: f i r st , t hat Lee dr ew di st i nct i ons bet ween young

peopl e t hat l ed hi m t o keep some j ur or s but st r i ke ot her s; and

second, t hat consi der at i ons of r emai ni ng chal l enges f or ei t her

par t y, t he number of j ur y seat s t o f i l l , and t he pool of pot ent i al

j uror s mot i vat ed Lee t o depar t f r om hi s pract i ce r egar di ng age.

Af t er an ext ensi ve r evi ew of t he evi dence, t he di st r i ct cour t

concl uded t hat Sanchez had not proven Lee exer ci sed a peremptory

chal l enge t o J ur or 261 on t he basi s of r ace. Thi s appeal f ol l owed.

I I .

Bat son v. Kent ucky, 476 U. S. 79 ( 1986) , set s f or t h t he

t hr ee- st ep f r amewor k cour t s use t o assess cl ai ms of r aci al

di scr i mi nat i on i n j ur y sel ect i on. When r ai si ng an obj ect i on t o a

pr osecut or ' s use of a per empt or y chal l enge, a cr i mi nal def endant

must f i r st make a pr i ma f aci e case of r aci al di scr i mi nat i on.

Snyder v. Loui si ana, 552 U. S. 472, 476 ( 2008) . I f such a showi ng

i s made, t hen " t he pr osecut i on must of f er a race- neut r al basi s f or

st r i ki ng t he j ur or i n quest i on. " I d. at 477 ( quot i ng Mi l l er - El v.

Dr et ke, 545 U. S. 231, 277 ( 2005) ( Thomas, J . , di ssent i ng) ) .

Fi nal l y, based on "al l of t he ci r cumst ances, " t he cour t must

det er mi ne whet her t he def endant has car r i ed hi s ul t i mate bur den of

showi ng pur posef ul r aci al di scri mi nat i on. I d. at 478.

Si nce t hi s cour t pr evi ousl y det er mi ned t hat Sanchez had

made a pr i ma f aci e case, t hi s appeal concer ns onl y t he l at t er t wo


9/27

- 9 -

st eps of t he Bat son i nqui r y as appl i ed t o J ur or 261. 2 Typi cal l y,

we may not on habeas r evi ew or der an evi dent i ary hear i ng under 28

U. S. C. 2254( e) ( 2) , bar r i ng st at ut or i l y enumer at ed except i ons not

appl i cabl e her e. See Cul l en v. Pi nhol st er , 131 S. Ct . 1388, 1398

1400 ( 2011) . However , we note, as we di d i n our pr evi ous deci si on,

t hat our r emand t o t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t f or an evi dent i ar y

hear i ng on an i ssue of f eder al l aw about whi ch " t he st at e cour t s

have al r eady had t hei r say" was per mi ssi bl e i n l i ght of t he f act

t hat t he pauci t y of t he recor d was owi ng t o the st at e cour t ' s

unr easonabl e appl i cat i on of Bat son' s f i r st st ep. Sanchez I , 753

F. 3d at 308; see Madi son v. Comm' r , Al a. Dep' t of Cor r ect i ons, 761

F. 3d 1240, 124950 ( 11t h Ci r . 2014) ; Paul i no v. Har r i son, 542 F. 3d

692, 698 & n. 5 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) ; cf . Smi t h v. Cai n, 708 F. 3d 628,

635 ( 5t h Ci r . 2013) ( f i ndi ng Bat son evi dent i ar y hear i ng or der ed by

di st r i ct cour t t o sat i sf y 2254( e) ( 2) wher e cr i mi nal def endant

r ai sed Bat son obj ect i on "but t he st at e cour t f ai l ed t o pr ovi de hi m

t he oppor t uni t y t o devel op t he f act ual basi s of hi s cl ai m t hr ough

i t s mi sappl i cat i on of t he Bat son st andar d") . Nei t her par t y has

obj ect ed t o t hi s pr ocedur e.

2 We pr evi ousl y hel d t hat Sanchez wai ved any obj ect i on t ot he pr osecut i on' s chal l enges t o ot her j ur or s by f ai l i ng t o r ai set hem at t r i al , Sanchez I , 753 F. 3d at 295 & n. 10, and Sanchezcannot r evi ve such chal l enges i n t hi s appeal . We not e, however ,t hat chal l enges t o ot her j ur or s nonet hel ess may be r el evant t o t hei ssue of di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent , Dr et ke, 545 U. S. at 241, and so weconsi der such evi dence f or t hat pur pose.


10/27

- 10 -

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o deny a

pet i t i on f or habeas corpus de novo, Sanchez I , 753 F. 3d at 293,

and i n t he Bat son cont ext , we appl y cl ear er r or r evi ew t o t he f act -

f i ndi ng cour t ' s r ul i ng on di scri mi nat or y i nt ent , Snyder , 552 U. S.

at 477; Uni t ed St at es v. Monel l , 801 F. 3d 34, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) .

Wher e t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t conduct ed an evi dent i ar y hear i ng

and t ook t est i mony f r omt he pr osecut or who exer ci sed t he chal l enge

at i ssue, we r ecogni ze t hat "det er mi nat i ons of credi bi l i t y and

demeanor l i e ' pecul i ar l y wi t hi n [ i t s] pr ovi nce. ' " Snyder , 552

U. S. at 477 (quot i ng Hernandez v. New Yor k, 500 U. S. 322, 365

( 1991) ) . We must uphol d t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng unl ess "we

ar e l ef t wi t h t he def i ni t e and f i r m convi ct i on t hat a mi st ake has

been commi t t ed. " Uni t ed Stat es v. Mensah, 737 F. 3d 789, 796- 97

( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzal ez- Mel endez, 594

F. 3d 28, 35 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) ; see al so Madi son, 761 F. 3d at 1245;

Paul i no, 542 F. 3d at 698.

A. Bat son St ep Two

When cal l ed upon t o pr ovi de a r ace- neut r al basi s f or hi s

act i ons, Lee expl ai ned t hat he chal l enged J ur or 261 because of hi s

"age. " Age i s not a pr otect ed category under Bat son. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Cr est a, 825 F. 2d 538, 545 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) ; see al so


11/27

- 11 -

Uni t ed St at es v. Hel mst et t er , 479 F. 3d 750, 754 ( 10t h Ci r . 2007)

( col l ect i ng agr eei ng si ster c i r cui t s) . 3

Bear i ng i n mi nd t hat at st ep t wo, t he pr osecut i on' s

r eason does not have t o be "per suasi ve, or even pl ausi bl e, " Pur ket t

v. El em, 514 U. S. 765, 768 ( 1995) ( per cur i am) , we easi l y af f i r m

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat Lee' s expl anat i on - - t hat he

st r uck J ur or 261 because of hi s age - - i s r ace- neut r al , Uni t ed

St at es v. Bowl es, 751 F. 3d 35, 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) , and sat i sf i es

t he st at e' s bur den at st ep t wo t o ar t i cul at e a nondi scr i mi nat or y

r eason f or t he st r i ke, Pur ket t , 514 U. S. at 769.

B. Bat son St ep Thr ee

The cr i t i cal i ssue at t hi s st ep " i s t he persuasi veness

of t he pr osecut or ' s j ust i f i cat i on f or hi s per empt or y st r i ke. "

Mi l l er - El v. Cockr el l , 537 U. S. 322, 33839 ( 2003) . The bur den of

pr oof l i es wi t h Sanchez t o show t hat Lee act ed wi t h di scr i mi nat or y

pur pose. Pur ket t , 514 U. S. at 768. Si nce t hi s st ep t ur ns on

credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons and a f act - dr i ven eval uat i on of al l t he

3 Di sput i ng Lee' s expl anat i on, Sanchez cont ends t hat ouropi ni on i n Sanchez I concl usi vel y det er mi ned t hat "age" di d notmot i vat e Lee i n st r i ki ng J ur or 261. See Sanchez I , 753 F. 3d at306. That cont ent i on i s mer i t l ess, and i t mi sses the poi nt andpur pose of t he r emand. What ever concl usi ons we drew about Lee' smot i vat i ons i n our pr i or opi ni on r ef l ect ed onl y t he l i mi t ed f act st hen avai l abl e on t he st at e cour t r ecor d, i d. at 307. Our pr i oranal ysi s per t ai ned onl y t o Bat son st ep one and does not det er mi neour cur r ent r evi ew of t he l at t er Bat son st eps, based on t hedi st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs, whi ch ar e based on a di f f er ent andaugment ed r ecor d.


12/27

- 12 -

r el evant ci r cumst ances t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i s best sui t ed t o

make, Cockrel l , 537 U. S. at 339, we r evi ew t he cour t ' s r ul i ng

t hr ough "a hi ghl y def er ent i al gl ass, " Uni t ed St at es v. Lar a, 181

F. 3d 183, 194 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) . We af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

f i ndi ng t hat Sanchez has not est abl i shed t hat Lee' s chal l enge t o

J uror 261 was r ace- based.

Sanchez ar gues, as he di d bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t ,

t hat Lee was not mot i vat ed t o chal l enge J ur or 261 because of hi s

yout h, si nce wer e yout h a cr i t er i on, he woul d have st r uck a

si mi l ar l y si t uat ed j ur or , J ur or 243 ( t he 21- year - ol d whi t e mal e

bor n i n Russi a) . 4 Cour t s may consi der " whet her si mi l ar l y si t uat ed

j uror s f r omout si de t he al l egedl y t ar get ed group wer e permi t t ed t o

ser ve. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ar anj o, 603 F. 3d 112, 115 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)

( quot i ng Aspen v. Bi ssonnet t e, 480 F. 3d 571, 577 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) ;

see al so Dr et ke, 545 U. S. at 241. Lee t est i f i ed t hat al t hough he

was i ncl i ned t o chal l enge J ur or 243, he deci ded i nst ead not t o

because he was "r unni ng out of chal l enges, " and J ur or 243 appear ed

mor e mat ur e t han hi s "chr onol ogi cal age. " Lee t est i f i ed:

I t ook [ J ur or 243] , despi t e not want i ng t ot ake hi m, but I was - - t her e are a number ofyoung j ur ors who I wi l l t ake based upon what

I consi der t o be i ndi cat i ons on t hei r

4 As t o ot her young j ur or s, t he r ecor d ampl y suppor t s t hedi st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat Lee decl i ned t o st r i ke J ur or255 because she was, at age 27, not "over l y young, " and decl i nedt o st r i ke J ur or 293, a 26- year - ol d f emal e, and J ur or 333, a 23-year - ol d f emal e, because he had onl y t hr ee and t wo chal l engesr emai ni ng, r espect i vel y.


13/27

- 13 -

quest i onnai r e t hat mi ght make t hem not f i tt hei r chr onol ogi cal age, whi ch i s t o say t hathe was 21 years ol d, but I not ed he was bor ni n Moscow, I not ed t hat he came here on hi sown t o begi n hi s own educat i on, and so It hought i f I had t o t ake a young j ur or , t hatwoul d be somebody who mi ght be a bet t ercandi date t han most .

Regar di ng J ur or 261, i n cont r ast , Lee t est i f i ed t hat he "di dn' t

see anyt hi ng el se on [ J ur or 261' s] quest i onnai r e t hat woul d gi ve

[ hi m] r eason t o bel i eve t hat he had a mat ur i t y l evel gr eat er t han

t hat of an age 19- year - ol d per son. "

Sanchez at t empt s t o under cut t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

f i ndi ng as t o t hi s expl anat i on' s cr edi bi l i t y. Fi r st , he poi nt s t o

Lee' s concessi on on cr oss- exami nat i on t hat he was aware j ur y

member s must be U. S. ci t i zens as proof t hat Lee di d not bel i eve

J uror 243 "came here on hi s own t o begi n hi s own educat i on, " and

so coul d not have percei ved t he j ur or t o be more mat ur e on t hat

basi s. Second, Sanchez argues t hat Lee coul d not have vi ewed bei ng

f or ei gn- bor n as a si gn of mat ur i t y because, had t hi s been hi s vi ew,

he woul d not have st r uck J ur or 201 ( a 25- year- ol d mal e f r om

Tr i ni dad) . Thi r d, he ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y

suppl i ed Lee wi t h t he i dea t hat t he di f f er ence i n age bet ween 19

and 21 was meani ngf ul . None of t he argument s have mer i t .

Sanchez' s f i r st ar gument does not est abl i sh cl ear er r or .

Even i f Lee was ul t i mat el y mi st aken i n hi s assumpt i ons about J ur or

243' s bi ogr aphy, what mat t ers i s whet her t he expl anat i on genui nel y


14/27

- 14 -

" r ef l ect ed [ hi s] t r ue mot i ve. " Ar anj o, 603 F. 3d at 116. The

di st r i ct cour t obser ved Lee t est i f y, i ncl udi ng subj ect t o an

extensi ve cr oss- exami nat i on, and concl uded t hat i t was pl ausi bl e

t hat Lee had seen J ur or 243' s f or ei gn or i gi n as conf er r i ng gr eat er

mat ur i t y. The cour t ' s r ej ect i on of Sanchez' s f i r st ar gument i s

not cl ear er r or .

The second ar gument f ar es no bet t er , and i t mi sconst r ues

Lee' s t est i mony. Lee di d t est i f y t hat he gener al l y sought t o

excl ude young pot ent i al j ur or s, but he di d not t est i f y that he

per cei ved bei ng f or ei gn- bor n as an absol ut e except i on t o hi s r ul e

on yout h. Lee st at ed t hat i n t he par t i cul ar case of J ur or 243, he

was l ooki ng f or i ndi cat i ons t hat he was "a l i t t l e bi t ol der t han

someone el se i n t er ms of l i f e exper i ences" because of t he

di mi ni shi ng number of chal l enges r emai ni ng. Exami ni ng t he

dynami cs of t he j ur y sel ect i on pr ocess, t he di st r i ct cour t

cor r ect l y not ed t hat Lee "had subst ant i al l y mor e f l exi bi l i t y when

consi der i ng j ur or [ ] 201, " t he Tr i ni dadi an, t han when consi der i ng

l at er j ur or s, as he had 12 out of 16 per empt or y chal l enges

r emai ni ng at t he t i me. I t was not cl ear er r or f or t he di st r i ct

cour t t o credi t t he si ncer i t y of Lee' s consi der at i on of J ur or 243' s

f orei gn bi r t h.

Sanchez' s t hi r d ar gument i s qual i t at i vel y di f f er ent . He

ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y suppl i ed Lee wi t h a way

t o di st i ngui sh bet ween J ur or 243 and J ur or 261. Sanchez poi nt s t o


15/27

- 15 -

a moment dur i ng cr oss- exami nat i on f ol l owi ng a concessi on by Lee

t hat bot h J ur ors 243 and 261 were young col l ege st udent s and t hat

t hei r onl y "out war d" ascer t ai nabl e di f f er ence was r ace. The

di st r i ct j udge at t hat poi nt i nt er j ect ed: "Wel l , one was 19 and

one was 21, r i ght , do I have t hat r i ght ?" Af t er bot h Sanchez' s

counsel and Lee r esponded af f i r mat i vel y t o t he j udge' s quest i on,

t he f ol l owi ng col l oquy bet ween Sanchez' s counsel and Lee occur r ed:

Sanchez' s Counsel : But you chal l enged peopl ewho were ol der t han 21 f or age, di d you not ?

Lee: Yes. Ther e i s a di st i ncti on, but , as Isai d, my i ncl i nat i on woul d have been t o st r i ke[ J ur or 243] under al l t hi ngs bei ng equal .

Sanchez' s Counsel : So t he t wo year s was nott he def i ni ng di f f er ence f or you?

Lee: At t hat st age of t he game, ever y possi bl edi st i nct i on was r el evant .

Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t does not r ef er t o t hi s par t i cul ar

exchange, Sanchez r el i es on Mi l l er - El v. Dr et ke, 545 U. S. 231

( 2005) , t o suggest t hat t he t r i al j udge i mpr oper l y suppl i ed Lee

wi t h t he di f f er ence i n age bet ween t he j ur or s as t he r eason f or

str i ki ng, i d. at 252.

Thi s ar gument l acks mer i t f or a number of r easons. As

a mat t er of l aw, any r el i ance on Dr et ke i s mi spl aced. Dr et ke

i nvol ved a Bat son chal l enge i n whi ch t he appel l at e cour t j ust i f i ed

a pr osecut or ' s st r i ke based on a "r at i onal basi s" f or hi s act i ons

t hat t he cour t suppl i ed, wi t hout t aki ng f ul l account of t he r ecor d.


16/27

- 16 -

I d. The Cour t hel d t hat nei t her t r i al nor appel l at e cour t s may

di sr egar d t he r ecor d and " i magi ne a r eason" f or a pr osecut or ' s

act i ons. I d. That i s not what happened her e. Her e, i n concl udi ng

t hat Lee per cei ved a di f f er ence i n matur i t y bet ween J ur or 243 and

J uror 261, t he di st r i ct cour t r eci t ed ampl e r ecor d evi dence,

i ncl udi ng Lee' s t est i mony f r ombef or e t he cont est ed exchange. The

di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi ons do not r el y on, or even ment i on, t he

di sput ed exchange. But even so, we not e t hat t he di sput ed

st at ement t hat "ever y possi bl e di st i nct i on was r el evant , "

r ef er r i ng t o t he di f f er ence i n t he j ur or s' chr onol ogi cal ages, was

made i n r esponse t o opposi ng counsel ' s quest i on and not t hat of

t he di st r i ct j udge. We si mpl y do not have a case wher e af t er t he

f act t he di st r i ct cour t concoct ed an expl anat i on f r om whol e cl ot h

wi t hout r ecor d suppor t . 5 Gi ven t he hi ghl y def er ent i al st andar d of

r evi ew on quest i ons of cr edi bi l i t y, we have no t r oubl e af f i r mi ng

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat Lee r egar ded J ur or s 243 and 261

as di f f er ent based on di f f er ences ot her t han r ace.

5 To be cl ear , a t r i al j udge has di scr et i on t o makei nqui r i es of wi t nesses as necessar y t o f aci l i t at e a f ul l and f ai rhear i ng. See Fed. R. Evi d. 614( b) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mel endez-Ri vas, 566 F. 3d 41, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . I t i s per mi ssi bl e i n t henor mal cour se of a Bat son hear i ng f or a j udge to ask cl ar i f yi ngquest i ons and at t i mes engage wi t h wi t nesses di r ect l y. I ndeed,t he f act t hat t he di st r i ct j udge her e di d so sever al t i mes apar tf r om t he cont est ed exchange f ur t her i ndi cat es t hat , seen i n t hecont ext of a nor mal hear i ng, t her e was not hi ng pr ej udi ci al i n t hej udge' s quest i on about t he di f f er ence i n age between J ur or s 243and 261.


17/27

- 17 -

Fur t her , Lee' s choi ce t o keep J ur or 243 but st r i ke J ur or

261 i s al so support ed by hi s t est i mony concer ni ng t he i mport ance

of st r at egi cal l y usi ng and pr eser vi ng st r i kes i n l i ght of t he

dynami cs of j ur y sel ect i on. As t he di st r i ct cour t not ed,

consi derat i on of t he number of j ur ors t o be seated and t he number

of r emai ni ng chal l enges of ei t her par t y i s val i d. Mensah, 737

F. 3d at 802 ( not i ng as a val i d concer n a pr osecut or ' s caut i ousness

over a si ngl e r emai ni ng st r i ke when f aced wi t h unknown upcomi ng

j uror s) . Sanchez ar gues t hat Lee coul d not have so cal cul at ed t he

number of r emai ni ng chal l enges, unseat ed j ur ors, and

char act er i st i cs of pot ent i al j ur or s. Lee expl ai ned hi s pr act i ce

concer ni ng t hese cal cul at i ons and on cr oss- exami nat i on mai nt ai ned,

" I do i t i n every t r i al al l t he t i me. I ' m constant l y l ooki ng

t hr ough t he quest i onnai r es. " Ther e i s not hi ng i mpr obabl e about a

t r i al l awyer usi ng such a pr acti ce. The di st r i ct cour t ' s cr edi t i ng

of t hi s expl anat i on was not cl ear l y er r oneous.

Sanchez' s r emai ni ng ar gument s do not convi nce us

ot her wi se. Sanchez poi nt s t o t he f act t hat t he pr osecut or

el i mi nated one- hundr ed per cent of young bl ack men f r omt he veni r e.

We have pr evi ousl y hel d t hat t hi s i s not al one suf f i ci ent t o pr ove

di scr i mi nat i on, especi al l y wher e t her e ar e smal l number s of

pot ent i al j ur or s of t he al l egedl y t ar get ed gr oup. See i d. at 801

( caut i oni ng agai nst wei ghi ng heavi l y t hat pr osecut or st r uck al l

Asi an- Amer i cans wher e onl y t wo wer e i n veni r e) ; Cal dwel l v.


18/27

- 18 -

Mal oney, 159 F. 3d 639, 656 (1st Ci r . 1998) ( uphol di ng per empt ory

st r i kes of al l f our pot ent i al j ur or s of one r ace) . Sanchez al so

poi nt s t o Lee' s f ai l ur e t o expl ai n hi s use of a per empt or y

chal l enge dur i ng t he or i gi nal j ur y sel ect i on, but Lee was not

r equi r ed to pr ovi de such an expl anat i on unt i l one was r equest ed of

hi m. Sanchez I i ssued such a r equest , and Lee has now dul y of f ered

hi s expl anat i on.

We acknowl edge bot h t he di f f i cul t i es i n maki ng a Batson

det er mi nat i on on a col d r ecor d many year s f ol l owi ng t he or i gi nal

j ury sel ect i on and al so t he i mpor t ance of prot ect i ng t he r i ght of

ever y j ur or t o ser ve and of ever y def endant t o have a t r i al f r ee

of t he t ai nt of r aci al di scri mi nat i on. See Bat son, 476 U. S. at

87. But her e t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s br oad di scret i on

as f act f i nder on mat t er s of credi bi l i t y i n concl udi ng t hat Sanchez

has not pr oven t hat t her e was raci al di scr i mi nat i on. That ends

t he mat t er .

I I I .

For t he r easons st at ed, we af f i r m t he deni al of t he

habeas pet i t i on.

- Concurring Opinion Follows -


19/27

- 19 -

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge, concurring. The maj or i t y

opi ni on accur at el y set s f or t h t he appl i cabl e l aw and cogent l y

expl ai ns why, gi ven our st andard of r evi ew, we cannot r ever se t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s r ej ect i on of Dagober t o Sanchez' s Bat son

chal l enge. Ther ef or e, I r el uct ant l y concur i n t he maj or i t y' s

r esul t and r easoni ng. I wr i t e separ at el y t o poi nt out t hat

Sanchez' s Batson chal l enge has t r avel ed an arduous r out e t hr ough

t he st at e and f eder al cour t s and because of t hat hi st or i cal

j ourney, I am l ef t wi t h a queasy conf i dence i n t he deci si on we

r each t oday. Let me expl ai n.

When def ense counsel f i r st r ai sed a Bat son chal l enge i n

st ate cour t way back i n Sept ember of 2006, t he t r i al j udge was

r eady wi t h an i mmedi ate ( and i nappr opr i ate) r esponse. Wi t hout

aski ng f or t he pr osecut i on' s j ust i f i cat i on, t he j udge gr at ui t ousl y

sai d i n r ef er ence t o the j ust - st r uck 19- year - ol d Af r i can Amer i can

( J ur or No. 261) : "I t hi nk hi s yout h 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. " Sanchez v. Roden, 753

F. 3d 279, 286- 87 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Wi t h t hat , t he j udge not onl y

put words i n t he pr osecut or ' s mout h, but he al so t el egr aphed what

t he cour t woul d consi der t o be accept abl e, r ace- neut r al r easons

j ust i f yi ng t he perempt or y st r i ke.

And i t shoul d come as no sur pr i se t hat near l y ei ght year s

l at er , when f i nal l y cal l ed upon t o expl ai n why he st r uck t hi s

par t i cul ar j ur or , t he pr osecut or sei zed upon t he j ur or ' s " yout h. "


20/27

- 20 -

I n doi ng so, t he pr osecut or di d not hi ng mor e t han par r ot back t he

t r i al j udge' s unpr ompt ed suggest i on.

How wel l t hi s case i l l ust r ates t he Massachuset t s Supr eme

J udi ci al Cour t ' s war ni ng t hat a t r i al j udge who of f er s up hi s own

r eason f or a pr osecut or ' s per empt or y st r i ke " r i sks assumi ng t he

r ol e of t he pr osecut or . " Commonweal t h v. Fr yar , 610 N. E. 2d 903,

908 ( Mass. 1993) . I t t akes no gr eat amount of t hought t o concl ude

t hat , had t he t r i al j udge requi r ed a cont empor aneous expl anat i on

f or t he pr osecut or ' s st r i kes, my t r ust i n havi ng r eached t he

corr ect out come ( whi chever way i t went ) woul d be gr eat l y i ncr eased.

Unf or t unat el y, we wi l l never know what t he pr osecut or woul d have

sai d i n Sept ember 2006 had t he t r i al j udge not er r ed i n hi s

appl i cat i on of t he Supr eme Cour t ' s Bat son pr ot ocol . As a r esul t ,

t here wi l l al ways be a naggi ng quest i on i n my mi nd as t o whether

st r uct ur al er r or occur r ed at Sanchez' s t r i al whi ch has not been

det ect ed or cor r ect ed. Cf . Snyder v. Loui si ana, 552 U. S. 472, 477

( 2008) ( r ecogni zi ng t he t r i al cour t ' s "pi vot al r ol e i n eval uat i ng

Bat son cl ai ms" because " ' t he best evi dence [ of di scr i mi nat ory

i nt ent ] of t en wi l l be t he demeanor of t he at t or ney who exer ci ses

t he chal l enge' " ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Her nandez v. New

Yor k, 500 U. S. 352, 365 ( 1991) ( pl ural i t y opi ni on) ) ) .

Now, Sanchez' s habeas pet i t i on was essent i al l y doomed

when, f ol l owi ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s evi dent i ar y hear i ng, t he

di st r i ct j udge "f ound [ t he pr osecut or ' s t est i mony] t o be credi bl e


21/27

- 21 -

i n al l r espect s. " Sanchez v. Roden, No. 12- cv- 10931- FDS, 2015 WL

461917, at *7 ( D. Mass. Feb. 4, 2015) . And why di d t he j udge

bel i eve t he pr osecut or ' s adopt i on of t he t r i al j udge' s suggest i on

expl ai ned hi s perempt ory chal l enges? Because " [ h] i s demeanor was

pr of essi onal and cr edi bl e t hr oughout " t he pr oceedi ng. I d. Thr ough

t hi s obser vat i on, t he j udge ef f ect i vel y sai d t hat he f ound a

pr of essi onal t o be pr of essi onal . But agai n, what el se woul d be

expect ed when t he pr osecut or went i nt o the hear i ng not onl y havi ng

had al most ei ght years t o consi der what he woul d say, but al so

wi t h t he awar eness of what t he st at e t r i al j udge consi der ed t o be

a per f ectl y val i d and accept abl e j ust i f i cat i on f or t he st r i ke?

To be sure, t he di st r i ct j udge al so not ed t hat t he

pr osecut or ' s t est i mony "was based i n par t on memory and i n par t on

hi s r out i ne empanel ment pr act i ces, and [ t hat ] he endeavored t o

di st i ngui sh bet ween t he t wo as he t est i f i ed. " I d. He al so gave

a nod t o def ense counsel ' s " extensi ve cr oss- exami nat i on" of t he

pr osecut or . I d. These f act or s, i t appear s, must have pl ayed

cont r i but or y r ol es i n t he over al l f i ndi ng of cr edi bi l i t y.

But t he pr osecut or ' s t est i mony was not exact l y

monol i t hi c. On di r ect , he expl ai ned why he accept ed J ur or No.

243, t he 21- year - ol d whi t e col l ege student f r om Russi a, but not

J uror No. 261, t he 19- year - ol d bl ack col l ege st udent f r om Bost on:

I go t hr ough t hose [ j ur or ] quest i onnai r es t odet ermi ne how many of t he r emai ni ng chal l engesI ' m l i kel y t o have t o use, and i n t hat


22/27

- 22 -

par t i cul ar i nst ance, I t ook hi m, despi t e notwant i ng t o take hi m, but I was - - t her e ar e anumber of young j ur ors who I wi l l t ake basedupon what I consi der t o be i ndi cat i ons ont hei r quest i onnai r e t hat mi ght make t hem notf i t t hei r chr onol ogi cal age, whi ch i s t o sayt hat he was 21 years ol d, but I not ed he wasbor n i n Moscow, I not ed t hat he came here onhi s own t o begi n hi s own educat i on, and so It hought i f I had t o t ake a young j ur or , t hatwoul d be somebody who mi ght be a bet t ercandi date t han most .

Thus, t he r eason gi ven f or accept i ng one young col l ege

st udent whi l e st r i ki ng t he ot her i s t hat t her e was somet hi ng "mor e"

( my wor d, not t he pr osecut or ' s) i n t he whi t e j ur or ' s quest i onnai r e

- - and whi ch was absent f r omt he young bl ack man' s - - t hat l ed t he

pr osecut or t o bel i eve J ur or No. 243 mi ght be more mat ur e t han he

woul d expect ot her 21- year - ol ds to be. As i t t ur ns out , t he

pr osecut or ' s unequi vocal t est i mony about t hi s " mor e" - - t hat t he

quest i onnai r e t ol d hi m J ur or No. 243 t r avel ed t o t he Uni t ed St at es

"on hi s own t o begi n hi s own educat i on" - - di d not hol d up on

cr oss- exami nat i on.

Af t er conf i r mi ng t hat t he whi t e 21- year - ol d had been

born i n Moscow, Russi a ( as opposed t o Moscow, Mai ne) t he pr osecut or

had t he f ol l owi ng exchange wi t h Sanchez' s counsel :

Q. Okay. Thi s i s somebody who woul dn' t havet he same exper i ence wi t h our syst em of l aw asot her ci t i zens?

A. I don' t know. Al l I know i s t hat he wasborn i n anot her count r y and was at t endi ngschool i n t he Uni t ed St at es.


23/27

- 23 -

Q. Okay. And what about t hat di d you f i ndbenef i ci al ? Was t her e somet hi ng about hi mt hat over came the f act t hat he was young?

A. Bar el y, yes. The f act t hat I was down t osi x chal l enges and l ooki ng at hi m, myi ncl i nat i on was t o st r i ke hi m, but was t her eanyt hi ng speci f i cal l y t hat sai d t o me, [ ' ] oh,I want t hi s per son, [ ' ] not t hat I canr emember . I t was more of a hol d- your - nosesi t uat i on and t ake hi m because I t houghtsomebody who came t o t hi s count r y t o go t oschool at t he age of 21 may have beenchr onol ogi cal l y a l i t t l e bi t ol der t hansomeone el se i n ter ms of l i f e exper i ences, andt hat ' s real l y what I ' m l ooki ng at t hatsomebody who has some l evel of mat ur i t y and

l i f e exper i ence.

The prosecut or i ni t i al l y st ood st r ong and mai nt ai ned t he

posi t i on he t ook on di r ect , namel y, t hat J ur or No. 243 came t o the

Uni t ed St at es on hi s own t o at t end col l ege. But t he ver y next

exchange opened up a chi nk i n t he f oundat i on:

Q. Wel l , he coul dn' t have come here t o go t o

school , he had t o be a ci t i zen [ t o ser ve ont he j ur y] , cor r ect?

A. I di dn' t mean t hat I knew hi s l i f e hi st or y.I knew he was 21, and I knew t hat he was her eat t endi ng school and he was born i n anot hercount r y.

Thi s next col l oquy brought t he t est i moni al edi f i ce

t umbl i ng down:

Q. The f act t hat t he man was born i n Russi a,you don' t know whet her he came here at si xdays ol d, si x mont hs ol d, si x, si xt een year sol d; you have no i dea?

A. Cor r ect , absol ut el y no i dea.


24/27

- 24 -

So much f or t he pr osecut or ' s pr of essed bel i ef t hat J ur or

243 mi ght be more mat ur e t han ot her 21- year - ol ds as a resul t of

hi s havi ng come t o t he Uni t ed St at es on hi s own t o f ur t her hi s

educat i on.

Never t hel ess, sei zi ng on t hi s about - f ace t o r ej ect t he

di st r i ct j udge' s credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i on woul d over l ook t he f act

t hat t he pr osecut or act ual l y gave anot her r eason f or bel i evi ng

t hi s par t i cul ar 21- year - ol d mi ght be mor e mat ur e t han hi s

chr onol ogi cal age woul d gener al l y i ndi cat e. Af t er al l , t he

pr osecut or al so sai d t hat he r el i ed on t he f act t hat t he

pr ospect i ve j ur or had been "born i n Moscow. " Cr oss- exami nat i on

di d not subst ant i al l y under cut t hi s second r eason. I ndeed, he

expl ai ned, " I t hought somebody who came to t hi s count r y t o go t o

school at t he age of 21 may have been chr onol ogi cal l y a l i t t l e bi t

ol der t han someone el se i n t er ms of l i f e exper i ences, and t hat ' s

r eal l y what I ' m l ooki ng at t hat somebody who has some l evel of

mat ur i t y and l i f e exper i ence. "

That J uror No. 243 was born i n Moscow, Russ i a i s

uncont est ed on t hi s r ecor d. And i t ' s a f act t hat t echni cal l y

di f f er ent i at es J ur or No. 243 f r om J ur or No. 261, who was bor n i n

t he Bost on ar ea. Whet her t hi s ost ensi bl y r ace- neut r al f act 6 - - as

6 Pr esumabl y, pl ace of bi r t h woul d onl y make a di f f er ence i ft he i ndi vi dual l i ved t her e beyond hi s or her ear l y chi l dhood. HadJ uror No. 243 moved f r om Russ i a t o t he Uni t ed St at es when he was,say, t wo year s ol d, t her e i s no r eason at al l t o bel i eve t hat hi s


25/27

- 25 -

opposed t o one bei ng whi t e and t he other bl ack - - expl ai ns t he

pr osecut or ' s exer ci se of hi s per empt ory chal l enges depends

ent i r el y on t he credi bi l i t y of t he pr osecut or ' s test i mony. The

di st r i ct j udge, af t er hear i ng hi s t est i mony on di r ect and cross-

exami nat i on, f ound i t cr edi bl e and det er mi ned t hat t he pr osecut or

di d not st r i ke J ur or No. 261 on account of hi s r ace.

Thi s case i s devoi d of ext r i nsi c evi dence of r aci al

di scr i mi nat i on. We do not , f or exampl e, have t r i al not es f r om t he

pr osecut or i ndi cat i ng t hat r ace pl ayed a r ol e i n j ur y sel ect i on.

We do not have evi dence t hat t he pr osecut or mani pul ated t r i al

pr ocedur es i n an at t empt t o i nf l uence t he r aci al makeup of t he

j ury. See, e. g. , Mi l l er - El v. Dr et ke, 545 U. S. 231, 253- 55 ( 2005)

( comment i ng on t he pr osecut or ' s use of a "j ur y shuf f l e" t o keep

bl ack member s of t he veni r e at t he back of t he l i ne) . Nor i s t her e

evi dence of a l ongst andi ng t r adi t i on of r aci al di scri mi nat i on i n

Russi an bi r t hpl ace coul d r ender hi m mor e mat ur e t han hi schr onol ogi cal age or di st i ngui sh hi m f r om J ur or No. 261. Thepr osecut or admi t t ed, of cour se, t hat he has " no i dea" how l ongJ uror No. 243 l i ved i n Russi a. But , as t he maj or i t y opi ni oncor r ect l y poi nt s out , under Bat son t he reason f or a per empt or yst r i ke need not be cor r ect , per suasi ve or even pl ausi bl e, so l ongas i t i s race neut r al . Mor eover , once a r ace- neut r al r eason i sadvanced, t he per empt ory chal l enge wi l l be al l owed so l ong as t het r i al j udge i s convi nced t hat t he chal l engi ng par t y pr ovi ded t her eal mot i vat i on f or t he st r i ke, and t hat t he r eason was not of f er edmer el y t o camouf l age r aci al di scr i mi nat i on. Thus, what i si mpor t ant f or our pur poses her e i s not whet her a young man whohappened t o have been bor n i n Moscow i s mor e mat ure t han ot heryoung men of hi s age who had been bor n i n Bost on, but whet her t hepr osecut or genui nel y bel i eved t hat t o be possi bl e. And t hedi st r i ct j udge f ound t hat he di d.


26/27

- 26 -

t he use of per empt or y chal l enges i n t he pr osecut or ' s of f i ce, 7 or

evi dence t hat pr osecut ors wer e encour aged t o exer ci se per empt or i es

so as t o keep mi nor i t i es of f t he j ur y. See i d. at 263- 66 ( t aki ng

i nt o account a par t i cul ar count y' s "speci f i c pol i cy of

syst emat i cal l y excl udi ng bl acks f r om j ur i es, " i d. at 263) . And

not hi ng i n t he r ecor d cl ear l y demonst r at es t hat t he pr osecut or ' s

pr of f er ed r eason f or accept i ng J ur or No. 243 but not J ur or No. 261

was pr et ext ual . See i d. at 240- 52, 255- 63 ( compar i ng t he

pr osecut i on' s t r eat ment and quest i oni ng of bl ack ver sus whi t e

veni r e member s at voi r di r e and concl udi ng t hat " t he i mpl i cat i on

of r ace i n t he pr osecut or s' choi ce of quest i oni ng cannot be

expl ai ned away, " i d. at 263) ; see al so Snyder , 552 U. S. at 485

( concl udi ng t hat t he j ust i f i cat i on of f er ed by the pr osecut or was

pr et ext ual af t er conduct i ng a compar at i ve j ur or anal ysi s) .

I n sum, whet her t he pr osecut or ' s st r i ke of J ur or No. 261

vi ol at ed Bat son comes down ent i r el y to hi s cr edi bi l i t y i n

expl ai ni ng hi s st r i kes t hat day and, i n par t i cul ar , why he di d not

chal l enge J ur or No. 243. We have sai d t i me and t i me agai n t hat

maki ng credi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons i s a j ob f or t he di st r i ct cour t ,

not somet hi ng f or us t o do l ooki ng at a col d r ecor d. Absent ot her

evi dence i n t he r ecor d poi nt i ng t o raci al di scr i mi nat i on, we si mpl y

7 Al t hough counsel has r epr esent ed that t hi s has been apr obl em i n Suf f ol k Count y, t he ar gument s of counsel ar e notevi dence.


27/27

cannot say t hat t he di st r i ct j udge cl ear l y er r ed i n accept i ng t he

pr osecut or ' s expl anat i on and uphol di ng t he per empt or y chal l enge.

Thi s hol ds t r ue even i f any one ( or al l ) of us, si t t i ng as t he

t r i al j udge, mi ght have r eached a cont r ar y concl usi on.

Fi nal l y, because a t r i al j udge f aced wi t h a Bat son

chal l enge must consi der t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances, i t i s

appr opr i at e f or us t o acknowl edge t hem her e. Al t hough we are

unabl e t o say t he di st r i ct j udge cl ear l y er r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat t he

pr osecut or ' s st r i ke was not mot i vat ed by J ur or No. 261' s r ace, t he

end r esul t i s t hat al l young, bl ack men and young men of col or i n

t he veni r e - - i ndeed al l t hose who resembl ed Dagober t o Sanchez - -

f ound t hemsel ves di smi ssed at t he behest of t hei r own government .

No ot her gr oup of pr ospect i ve j ur or s r ecei ved such t r eat ment .

The f act s i n t hi s r ecor d cer t ai nl y r ai se t he j udi ci al

ant ennae. But gi ven t he st andard of r evi ew, I can do no more t han

r egi st er my di scomf or t at havi ng t o af f i r m t he deni al of habeas

r el i ef even t hough t he best evi dence as t o whet her or not a Batson

vi ol at i on occur r ed - - t he pr osecut or ' s cont empor aneous expl anat i on

- - has been i r r et r i evabl y l ost t o us.

sanchez v. roden, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents