Calhoun
Calhoun v. Harrison
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Parrish Calhoun filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , seeking relief from his state sentence based on a constitutional claim of discriminatory use of peremptory challenges under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). District Judge David Carter granted the petition, and the State appealed. We affirm.
Excluding members of a defendant’s race from a jury on the basis of their race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 85-87 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). A Batson challenge involves a three-part test. First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that a prosecutor’s challenge was based on race. Id. at 97-98 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . Second, the prosecutor must offer a race-neutral basis for the challenge. Id. Third, the court must determine whether the defendant has shown “purposeful discrimination.” Id. at 98 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 . Our recent opinion in Yee v. Duncan, 463 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2006), requires analysis under prong three of Batson even where a prosecutor failed to meet his burden under prong two.