Stanley Williams v. Jeanne Woodford, Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin

dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc:

In this case, a prosecutor, publicly castigated by the Supreme Court of California for his pattern of racially motivated peremptory jury challenges, removed all blacks from Williams’ jury. In declining *1060 to take this case en banc, our court bestows an implicit imprimatur upon the trial court’s denial of a constitutionally mandated jury selection process.

In my view, the panel opinion contains two errors: (1) failure to issue a certificate of appealability (COA) to Williams despite his satisfaction of the standard for the grant of a COA, and (2) misapplication of the standard of proof to establish a prima facie case of Batson error. By increasing the burden of proof necessary to make a Batson prima facie showing, the panel cleared the way for attorneys “who are of a mind to discriminate” by exercising their peremptory challenges to excise prospective African-American jurors from the jury box. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

I dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc not only because every defendant is entitled to a jury that is unbiased and untainted by racial discrimination in the…

396 F.3d 1059 Stanley WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne WOODFORD, Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee. No. 99-99018. No. 00-99001. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 2, 2005. Andrea G. Asaro, Esq., Rosen Bien & Asaro, San Francisco, CA, C. Renee Manes, Esq., Federal Public Defender's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant. Lisa J. Brault, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee. Before: HUG, T.G. NELSON, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. ORDER 1 The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Gould has voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judges Hug and T.G. Nelson have so recommended. 2 The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35. 3 The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. 4 RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge, with whom PREGERSON, REINHARDT, THOMAS,…

ORDER

The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Gould has voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judges Hug and T.G. Nelson have so recommended.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.