Randall Allan Yee v. Bill Duncan, Warden

Good Law
441 F.3d 851·2006 WL 770624·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 7553
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 28, 200605-55265California5,784 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bea, J.

When a criminal defendant has established a prima facie case of gender discrimination in the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge during jury selection, and the prosecutor is unable to recall the basis for her challenge, may the trial court substitute findings of the prosecutor’s sincerity, together with circumstantial evidence indicating a lack of gender-based motive, for the prosecutor’s failure to offer a gender-neutral explanation for the challenge? No. Under these circumstances, the law requires the explanation; we affirm the judgment of the district court conditionally granting the writ of habeas corpus.

The prosecutor in Randall Allan Yee’s 1999 trial in California state court exercised eight of her available ten peremptory challenges against male venire-members. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 231(a). Yee timely objected under Wheeler, and the trial judge determined Yee established a prima facie case of gender discrimination. After providing neutral reasons for seven of the strikes, the prosecutor stated she was unable to remember why she struck one of the male venire-members, Juror X. The trial court rejected Yee’s Wheeler/Batson objection, and the California Court of…

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.