Mobassa Boyd v. Kamala D. Harris

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Mobassa Boyd appeals the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief on remand after our earlier opinion, Boyd v. Newland, 467 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2006), of his claim under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Reviewing de novo, Cudjo v. Ayers, 698 F.3d 752, 761 (9th Cir.2012), petition for cert. filed, 81 U.S.L.W. 3457 (U.S. Feb. 4, 2018) (No. 12-971), we affirm.

The district court correctly held that, considering the voir dire transcript and the notes of Petitioner’s trial counsel, Petitioner’s Batson claim fails. A ‘“defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson’s first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.’” Boyd, 467 F.3d at 1145 (quoting Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 170 , 125 S.Ct. 2410 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005)). Although that threshold is “quite low,” id, the evidence in the record here was insufficient.

The prosecutor used one peremptory-strike on an African-American prospective juror and three peremptory strikes on white prospective jurors. An alternate juror was African-American, another alternate juror was Hispanic,…