Thomas

MEMORANDUM **

The State of California, through Warden E. Roe, appeals the federal district court’s grant of habeas corpus relief to Michael Vohron Thomas, a California state prisoner. The State challenges the district court’s conclusion, following an evidentiary hearing, that at Thomas’ state trial the prosecutor purposely discriminated among the potential jurors on the basis of their race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

1. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a federal district court may disturb a state court’s determinations of law only if they are “contrary to” or “involved an unreasonable application of’ clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). The district court generally reviews the state court’s fact-specific determination of whether a defendant has made a prima facie case of a Batson violation deferentially, applying AEDPA’s “‘statutory presumption of correctness.’ ”…