Floyd A. Mitleider v. James Hall, Warden Steven Cambra, Director Bill Lockyer, Attorney General

Good Law
391 F.3d 1039·2004 WL 2827660·2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 25467
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 10, 200403-56097California4,202 words

Opinion

Opinion

Callahan, J.

Floyd A. Mitleider appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. Mitleider claims that race motivated the prosecutor’s peremptory strike of four African-Americans from his jury in violation of the equal protection principles articulated in 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. § 2253 . The trial court followed the three steps set forth in Batson and determined that the prosecutor’s reasons for the challenges were race-neutral. The trial court’s determination was affirmed on appeal by the California Court of Appeal. As the state courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law or unreasonably determine the facts in denying Mitleider’s Batson challenge, we affirm.

I.

In 1996, California charged Mitleider, who is not African-American, and- three African-American co-defendants with solicitation to commit murder, conspiracy, and attempted murder based on events arising out of an alleged plot to kill Mit-leider’s wife in order to collect life insurance proceeds. The defendants were tried together in San Diego Superior Court.

The venire from which Mitleider’s jury was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.