Raymond Graham v. Kelly Harrington

MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, California state prisoners Raymond and Dashawn Graham appeal the denial of their 28 .U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petitions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny their habeas petitions, see Clabourne v. Ryan, 745 F.3d 362, 370 (9th.Cir.2014), and we affirm.

In a joint state court trial, a jury found Appellants guilty of three counts of home invasion robbery, two counts of residential burglary, one count of unlawfully taking a vehicle, and one count of street terrorism. The claim certified for our review is that' the prosecutor struck seven different jurors during voir dire for racially discriminatory reasons in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). They argue that because the trial court failed to proceed to “step three” of the Batson inquiry, in which the court is tasked with “evalu-at[ing] meaningfully the persuasiveness” of the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations, United States v. Alanis, 335 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.2003), we should review the Bat-son claim de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . In its decision on direct appeal, the…