Henderson v. La Marque

MEMORANDUM *

Henderson appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the relevant facts are known to the parties they are here repeated only as needed.

I

Henderson first claims that both the prosecutor and defense counsel impermissibly struck jurors from the venire on the basis of race and gender. Applying-as did the district court-the three-part test from Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96-97 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), we conclude that the prosecutor offered legitimate, neutral justifications for striking three of the jurors. The trial court in this case carefully considered these justifications and found them to be genuine. Moreover, the prosecutor’s justifications have been deemed valid by both California and federal courts. The trial court’s conclusion can be reversed only if it was clearly erroneous. See McClain v. Prunty, 217 F.3d 1209, 1220 (9th Cir.2000). And because we review this petition under the standard prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) (“AEDPA”), Henderson’s claim can only succeed if the state court’s decision was “objectively unreasonable.” See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1174-75…