SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW NINTH CIRCUIT RACIAL BIAS RULING
Oral Argument in Rice v. Collins scheduled for Monday, December
5
The United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument Monday in its
review of a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which overturned
the conviction of a habitual criminal who received a 25-year sentence
under California’s Three Strikes sentencing law. At issue in the
case of Rice v. Collins is the Ninth Circuit’s finding that
the prosecutor discriminated against blacks during jury selection. Prior
decisions by the trial judge, a state appellate court, and the federal
District Court had rejected the criminal’s racial bias claim.
The Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has joined the
case to encourage a decision overturning the Ninth Circuit. “This
is another case where the Ninth Circuit has reversed a conviction because
it simply disagreed with the holdings of the state courts,” said
Charles Hobson, who authored the Foundation’s amicus curiae (friend
of the court) brief in the case. “The Ninth Circuit’s ruling
clearly violates rules which limit its authority to disregard reasonable
state court decisions,” he added.
The case involves the conviction of Steven Collins for possession of
rock cocaine. After finding that Collins had prior convictions of robbery
and forcible rape, which qualified him for a third strike under California
law, the judge sentenced Collins to 25 years to life.
During jury selection, the prosecutor used two of his peremptory challenges
to dismiss black prospective jurors, but did not challenge two other
blacks who ultimately served and participated in the trial. When the
two blacks were challenged, Collins asked the judge to rule that the
prosecutor violated the prohibition against racial bias in jury selection
established by the 1987 case of Batson v. Kentucky. The judge
held a hearing to determine the basis for the prosecutor’s challenges,
found them reasonable, and ruled that there was no racial bias.
Following his conviction and sentence, Collins appealed claiming that
the trial judge had violated his rights by allowing jury discrimination.
The state Court of Appeal rejected this claim, applying California precedent
which gives great deference to the trial court’s finding of fact
with regard to bias claims. After the state Supreme Court denied review,
Collins petitioned the federal District Court to uphold his claim. On
habeas corpus the District Court conducted a full review and found the
claim meritless. Collins then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On November
3, 2003, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the lower courts by a 2-1 vote.
The opinion, authored by Judge Richard Paez, reconsidered the facts
surrounding the prosecution’s jury challenges and came to a different
conclusion than the trial judge. The opinion also found the decisions
of the lower state and federal court unreasonable.
In CJLF’s brief, the Foundation argues that both the Batson
decision and federal law require the federal courts to give great deference
to the trial judge’s determination of the facts. The Ninth Circuit’s
ruling ignored this prohibition and reconsidered the facts several years
after the trial, without the benefit of actually seeing the challenged
jurors or hearing their responses to questions. The Foundation argues
that the deference requirement was imposed specifically to prevent federal
courts from second guessing the judges actually presiding over the trial
who are far better qualified to evaluate the facts. “With regard
to Batson claims, the written court record does not reflect the
attitude or behavior of prospective jurors, which is often critical
to a lawyer’s decision to seat them,” said Hobson.
CJLF Attorney Charles Hobson is available for comment
at (916) 446-0345.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation helped win seven United States
Supreme Court decisions benefitting law enforcement and public safety
during the Court’s 2004/05 term.
The Foundation’s brief is available at:
http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/Collins.pdf
|
