Carl Lewis v. David Runnels

MEMORANDUM

A. The district court did not commit clear error in its determination that the prosecutor provided credible, race neutral reasons for excluding two African-American women from the jury and that he was not motivated by racial bias. See Felkner v. Jackson, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1305, 1307 , 179 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011). Therefore, Lewis failed to establish “purposeful discrimination.” See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 90 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

B. The California Court of Appeal’s determination that the special circumstance jury instruction (California Jury Instruction-Criminal 8.80.1) complied with Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987), “was [not] contrary to,” and did not “involve[ ] an unreasonable application of, clearly established” Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Even assuming error in the instruction, the error would not have “a substantial and injurious effect,” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Lewis was the actual killer, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61…