Anderson

*447 MEMORANDUM *

1. “Because the California courts followed the “strong likelihood” test of [People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 (1978) ] rather than the “inference” test of Batson in adjudicating [Petitioner’s] claims of racial bias in the prosecution’s use of its peremptory challenges, we review [Petitioner’s] Batson claims de novo.” Wade v. Terhune, 202 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir.2000).

However, Petitioner William Little Anderson failed to establish a prima facie Batson claim by demonstrating that the “relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used [peremptory challenges] to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race.” Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The most Anderson can possibly prove is that some of the potential jurors that were challenged by the prosecution were African-American. Even so, “a peremptory challenge to the only members of a similar racial group on the venire does not constitute a pattern of exclusion sufficient to establish a prima facie case.” United States v. Wills II, 88 F.3d 704, 715 (9th Cir.1996) (citation omitted). Because Anderson…