Davis v. Ayala
| Decision Date | 18 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–1428.,13–1428. |
| Citation | 192 L.Ed.2d 323,576 U.S. 257,135 S.Ct. 2187 |
| Parties | Ron DAVIS, Acting Warden, Petitioner v. Hector AYALA. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Robin Urbanski, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Anthony J. Dain, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Edward C. DuMont, Solicitor General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Joshua A. Klein, Deputy Solicitor General, Holly D. Wilkens, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Robin Urbanski, Counsel of Record, Deputy Attorney General, State of California Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Anthony J. Dain, Counsel of Record, Robin L. Phillips, Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
A quarter-century after a California jury convicted Hector Ayala of triple murder and sentenced him to death, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Ayala's application for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the State to retry or release him. The Ninth Circuit's decision was based on the procedure used by the trial judge in ruling on Ayala's objections under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), to some of the prosecution's peremptory challenges of prospective jurors. The trial judge allowed the prosecutor to explain the basis for those strikes outside the presence of the defense so as not to disclose trial strategy. On direct appeal, the California Supreme Court found that if this procedure violated any federal constitutional right, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Ninth Circuit, however, held that the error was harmful.
The Ninth Circuit's decision was based on the misapplication of basic rules regarding harmless error. Assuming without deciding that a federal constitutional error occurred, the error was harmless under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Ayala's conviction resulted from the attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California, in April 1985. The prosecution charged Ayala with three counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, one count of robbery, and three counts of attempted robbery. The prosecution also announced that it would seek the death penalty on the murder counts.
Jury selection lasted more than three months, and during this time the court and the parties interviewed the prospective jurors and then called back a subset for general voir dire . As part of the jury selection process, more than 200 potential jurors completed a 77–question, 17–page questionnaire. Potential jurors were then questioned in court regarding their ability to follow the law. Jurors who were not dismissed for cause were called back in groups for voir dire, and the parties exercised their peremptory challenges.
Each side was allowed 20 peremptories, and the prosecution used 18 of its allotment. It used seven peremptories to strike all of the African–Americans and Hispanics who were available for service. Ayala, who is Hispanic, raised Batson objections to those challenges.
Ayala first objected after the prosecution peremptorily challenged two African–Americans, Olanders D. and Galileo S. The trial judge stated that these two strikes failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, but he nevertheless required the prosecution to reveal the reasons for the strikes. The prosecutor asked to do this outside the presence of the defense so as not to disclose trial strategy, and over Ayala's objection, the judge granted the request. The prosecution then offered several reasons for striking Olanders D., including uncertainty about his willingness to impose the death penalty. The prosecution stated that it dismissed Galileo S. primarily because he had been arrested numerous times and had not informed the court about all his prior arrests. After hearing and evaluating these explanations, the judge concluded that the prosecution had valid, race-neutral reasons for these strikes.
Ayala again raised Batson objections when the prosecution used peremptory challenges to dismiss two Hispanics, Gerardo O. and Luis M. As before, the judge found that the defense had not made out a prima facie case, but ordered the prosecution to reveal the reasons for the strikes. This was again done ex parte, but this time the defense did not expressly object. The prosecution explained that it had challenged Gerardo O. and Luis M. in part because it was unsure that they could impose the death penalty. The prosecution also emphasized that Gerardo O.'s English proficiency was limited and that Luis M. had independently investigated the case. The trial court concluded a second time that the prosecution had legitimate race-neutral reasons for the strikes.
Ayala raised Batson objections for a third and final time when the prosecution challenged Robert M., who was Hispanic; George S., whose ethnicity was disputed; and Barbara S., who was African–American. At this point, the trial court agreed that Ayala had made a prima facie Batson showing. Ayala's counsel argued that the strikes were in fact based on race. Ayala's counsel contended that the challenged jurors were "not significantly different from the white jurors that the prosecution ha[d] chosen to leave on the jury both in terms of their attitudes on the death penalty, their attitudes on the criminal justice system, and their attitudes on the presumption of innocence." App. 306. Ayala's counsel then reviewed the questionnaire answers and voir dire testimony of Barbara S. and Robert M., as well as the statements made by three of the prospective jurors who had been the subject of the prior Batson objections, Galileo S., Gerardo O., and Luis M. Counsel argued that their answers showed that they could impose the death penalty. The trial court stated that it would hear the prosecution's response outside the presence of the jury, and Ayala once more did not object to that ruling. The prosecution then explained that it had dismissed the prospective jurors in question for several race-neutral reasons, including uncertainty that Robert M., George S., or Barbara S. would be open to imposing the death penalty. The prosecution also emphasized (among other points) that Robert M. had followed a controversial trial, that George S. had been a holdout on a prior jury, and that Barbara S. had given the impression during voir dire that she was under the influence of drugs. The trial court concluded, for a third time, that the prosecution's peremptory challenges were based on race-neutral criteria.
In August 1989, the jury convicted Ayala of all the charges except one of the three attempted robberies. With respect to the three murder convictions, the jury found two special circumstances: Ayala committed multiple murders, and he killed during the course of an attempted robbery. The jury returned a verdict of death on all three murder counts, and the trial court entered judgment consistent with that verdict.
Ayala appealed his conviction and sentence, and counsel was appointed to represent him in January 1993. Between 1993 and 1999, Ayala filed 20 applications for an extension of time, 11 of which requested additional time to file his opening brief. After the California Supreme Court eventually ruled that no further extensions would be granted, Ayala filed his opening brief in April 1998, nine years after he was convicted. The State filed its brief in September 1998, and Ayala then asked for four extensions of time to file his reply brief. After the court declared that it would grant him no further extensions, he filed his reply brief in May 1999.
In August 2000, the California Supreme Court affirmed Ayala's conviction and death sentence. People v. Ayala, 24 Cal.4th 243, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 532, 6 P.3d 193 (2000). In an opinion joined by five justices, the State Supreme Court rejected Ayala's contention that the trial court committed reversible error by excluding the defense from part of the Batson hearing. The court understood Ayala to challenge the peremptory strikes under both Batson and its state-law analogue, People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (1978). The court first concluded that the prosecution had not offered matters of trial strategy at the ex parte hearing and that, "as a matter of state law, it was [error]" to bar Ayala's attorney from the hearing. 24 Cal.4th, at 262, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 532, 6 P.3d, at 203.
Turning to the question of prejudice, the court stated:
Id ., at 264 , 6 P.3d, at 204.
The court then reviewed the prosecution's reasons for striking the seven prospective jurors and found that Id., at 268, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 532, 6 P.3d, at 207. The court concluded that the record supported the trial judge's implicit determination that the prosecution's justifications were not fabricated and were instead "grounded in fact." Id.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baker
...intent’ "]; Foster v. Chatman (2016) 578 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1737, 1747, 195 L.Ed.2d 1 ( Foster ); Davis v. Ayala (2015) 576 U.S. 257, 270, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 2199, 192 L.Ed.2d 323 ( Ayala ); People v. Smith (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1134, 1147, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 417 P.3d 662.) "The existence or none......
-
Said v. United States
...v. Jones, 935 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir. 2019); see also, United States v. McClaren, 998 F.3d 203, 230 (5th Cir. 2021); See Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, at 267-68 (2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) ("[R]elief is proper [on collateralreview] only if the ... court has grave......
-
Noguera v. Davis
...is not entitled to relief based on trial error, unless the error resulted in "actual prejudice." Davis v. Ayala , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 2197, 192 L.Ed.2d 323 (2015) (citing Brecht , 507 U.S. at 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710 ); Darden v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. at 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464 ; Chapman ......
-
Chinn v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst.
...on the procedural state of a criminal defendant's challenge to his conviction, different harmless-error tests apply. Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257(2015). On direct appeal in state courts, the harmless formulation of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), gov......
-
Ruling 6-3, SCOTUS sets out added requirements for federal habeas petitioners
...habeas court is to evaluate whether a state trial error was harmless. See Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 119–120 (2007); Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 267–270 (2015). And twice, we have made clear that the habeas court need apply only the standard prescribed in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. ......
-
Justice Breyer pens solo cert denial statement to again express concern with long death row stays
...In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 172 (1890). On top of that, “[y]ears on end of near-total isolation exact a terrible price.” Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 289 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Smith has been subjected to those conditions, not for four weeks, but for four decades. While I recogn......
-
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE "REASONABLENESS" STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
...bulwark against erroneous factual determinations. To presume otherwise is to make light of Winship."). (204.) Id. at 332 n.5. (205.) 576 U.S. 257, 276 (2015) ("The role of a federal habeas court is to '"guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems,"' not to apply......
-
F. Your Right to Be Free from Cruel and Unusual Punishment
...non-binding opinions, Justice Anthony Kennedy has said, "[y]ears on end of near-total isolation exact a terrible price." Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2210 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Justice Stephen Breyer has said, "it is well documented that . . . prolonged solitary confinement ......
-
Trials
...a cognizable group). 1787. See Batson , 476 U.S. at 96. 1788. See Johnson v. Cal., 545 U.S. 162, 168 (2005 ) ; see also Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 271-74 (2015) (no inference of discrimination where similar responses to jury selection questionnaire given by white juror seated and Black j......
-
Recent Legal Developments: Criminal Justice Decisions of the United States Supreme Court, 2021 Term
...Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991).Concepcion v. United States, ___ U.S. ___ (2022).Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015).Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005).Denezpi v. United States, ___ U.S. ___ (2022).Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).D......