`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`FILED
`
`
`FEB 20 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`No. 23-2223
`
`
`D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05675-WHO
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner-Appellant,
`
`JABRIE BENNETT,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`Warden JEFF LYNCH,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respondent-Appellee.
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California
`William H. Orrick, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Argued and Submitted February 12, 2025
`San Francisco, California
`
`Before: VANDYKE and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,
`District Judge.**
`
`
`Petitioner Jabrie Bennett seeks review of a district court judgment denying a
`
`writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we
`
`affirm.
`
`
`* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
`provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
`
`** The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District
`of Montana, sitting by designation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), we apply
`
`a “highly deferential” standard when evaluating state court rulings. Woodford v.
`
`Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (citation omitted). We have statutory authority to
`
`grant habeas relief only if the state court’s ruling was either (1) “contrary to, or
`
`involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
`
`determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “based on an
`
`unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State
`
`court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The district court’s denial of a petition for
`
`habeas corpus is reviewed de novo. See Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1116
`
`(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Under AEDPA, we evaluate “the last reasoned state-court
`
`decision,” which in this case is from the state appellate court, the California Court
`
`of Appeal. See Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 996 (9th Cir. 2014). The petitioner
`
`bears the burden of proof. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011).
`
`1. Bennett argues that we should review de novo the California Court of
`
`Appeal’s decision because it erred unreasonably by upholding the trial court’s
`
`decision that considered the demographic makeup of the jury at the third stage of the
`
`Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96 (1986), inquiry rather than the first. But the
`
`state appellate court’s determination that the trial court did not place undue weight
`
`on the presence of same-race jurors was not unreasonable. Indeed, the California
`
`Court of Appeal found that even if the trial court erred by “improperly inflat[ing] the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`importance of [the presence of same-race jurors]” by finding it “‘powerful evidence’
`
`of a … lack of discriminatory intent,” the court would have “reach[ed] the same
`
`result under a de novo standard of review.” So in rejecting the Batson challenge the
`
`California Court of Appeal did not err unreasonably. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
`
`2. The state appellate court was not objectively unreasonable in upholding
`
`the trial court’s determination that the prosecutor’s peremptory strike against
`
`Dominique Jones was race neutral. That the prosecutor made misstatements does
`
`not give rise to an inference of discriminatory intent. See Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S.
`
`333, 340 (2006). The California Court of Appeal reasonably found that the
`
`prosecutor’s misstatement that Jones’s mother was incarcerated was minor because
`
`“the record supports that [Jones] had a close relative; that [Jones] was around her
`
`while she went through the court process; that she was incarcerated for a significant
`
`period on drug trafficking charges; and that he visited her multiple times during her
`
`incarceration.” This concern is a race-neutral reason to strike a juror. See People v.
`
`Cruz, 187 P.3d 970, 987 n.3 (Cal. 2008); Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360
`
`(1991). Additionally, because the California Court of Appeal found Jones’s
`
`experience visiting his aunt to be a “serious disqualifying issue,” it was not
`
`unreasonable for the court, examining the totality of the circumstances, to conclude
`
`that the prosecutor was not “motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent.”
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. 284, 303 (2019) (quoting Foster v. Chatman, 578
`
`U.S. 488, 513 (2016)).
`
`3. Bennett also argues that a comparative juror analysis demonstrates pretext.
`
`Here again, the state court’s conclusion that these other jurors were not comparable
`
`was not unreasonable. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). None of the other jurors Bennett
`
`identifies visited a close relative while she was incarcerated.
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
