En Banc -- Habeas, Batson, scope of review
Clearly established constitutional law did not require an appeals court evaluating a collateral Batson challenge to engage in comparative juror analysis.
Court did not conflate the analysis of the prosecutors' justifications with the analysis of the trial court's acceptance of the justifications.
While the court evaluating the state writ was not compelled to engage in comparative juror analysis, comparative juror analysis in the Federal collateral challenge can reveal an unreasonable application of facts in the state proceeding.
Evidence before a state trial court not introduced at state collateral proceedings doesn't implicate Pinholster.
Remanded to panel to determine if unreasonable application of facts.
Concur (3):
No substantive change in the law in the interval requiring comparative juror analysis in state Habeas.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/24/09-17339.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.