Michael Neuman v. Alan Crogan

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Michael Richard Neuman (Neuman) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition premised on the prosecutor’s allegedly improper use of peremptory challenges to exclude “people of color” from the jury in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, we must defer to the state court’s determination that there was no purposeful discrimination unless its decision was: (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented-”28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

The California Court of Appeal’s determination that the totality of the circumstances failed to raise an inference of discrimination was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and the state court did not unreasonably determine the facts. As the state court noted, see People v.…