Robert McDaniels v. Richard Kirkland

Before us on remand from the en banc court are Petitioners’ contentions that the California Court of Appeal’s adjudication of their Batson claims was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. McDaniels v. Kirkland, 813 F.3d 770 , 782 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). The en banc court clarified that in assessing Petitioners’ claims, we are to “consider the entire state-court record, not merely those materials that were presented to state appellate courts.” Id. at 780 . After considering the entire state-court record, we conclude that the California Court of Appeal’s decision did not rest on an unreasonable determination of the facts. We therefore affirm the district , court’s decisions denying Petitioners habeas relief.

I.

Our prior panel opinion recounted the background necessary to understand this appeal. McDaniels v. Kirkland, 760 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 2014), on rehearing en banc McDaniels v. Kirkland, 813 F.3d 770, 782 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). The following summary is taken from that opinion:

McDaniels, 760 F.3d at 937 .

II.

The documents that Petitioners failed to provide to the California Court of Appeal (CCA)—the juror questionnaires and the transcript…