Tirouda
United States v. Tirouda
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Zineddine, Zoubida, and Salah Tirouda appeal from the district court’s denial of their joint Batson challenge. We affirm.
The Tiroudas argue that during voir dire the prosecutor struck two prospective jurors based on their Hispanic ethnicity and in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The procedural posture of this case requires us to address only the third step of the Batson process: that is, “whether the opponent of the strike has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination.” Kesser v. Cambra, 465 F.3d 351, 359 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (citation omitted). At this stage of the analysis, the trier of fact must determine “whether counsel’s race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge should be believed” in light of the totality of the relevant facts. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 363, 365 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991).
During voir dire, the prosecutor offered “‘clear and reasonably specific’ explanation^] of his ‘legitimate reasons’ for exercising the challenges” of prospective jurors Ojeda and Rodriguez. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 20, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (citation omitted). For…