Williams v. Pliler
| Decision Date | 20 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:03-cv-0721 LKK AC,2:03-cv-0721 LKK AC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | RICHARD ALEX WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. CHERYL PLILER, Respondent. |
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 1998 conviction for one count of murder, in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 187(a),1 with the special circumstance that the murder was committed "by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside the vehicle with the intent to inflict death," § 190.2(a)(21), and two counts of attempted murder, in violation of §§ 664, 187(a). Petitioner is presently serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as to the murder conviction, and an aggregate determinate term of 10 years and eight months for his convictions on the attempted murder charges.
This action is before the undersigned on remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsfollowing this court's March 17, 2008 denial of petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. On remand, the issue is whether the state trial prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge to exclude an African-American prospective juror on account of her race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The court is directed to determine whether race played "a substantial part" in the prosecutor's decision to exclude the prospective juror. ECF No. 50 (); see Crittenden v. Ayers, 624 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2010).
An evidentiary hearing was held before U.S. Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on February 14, 2013, and the matter was submitted. The case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned on November 5, 2013. The undersigned has independently reviewed the state court record and the record of proceedings in this court, including both the transcript and the audio recording of the evidentiary hearing conducted by Judge Moulds. As the court's discussion will make clear, no factual determinations material to these findings and recommendations require visual observation of witness demeanor at the evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the newly-assigned magistrate judge to conduct a repeat evidentiary hearing.
On August 15, 1996, the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office filed a complaint charging petitioner with one count of murder, in violation of § 187(a), with a special circumstance that the murder had been perpetrated by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle at a person outside said motor vehicle, and two counts of attempted murder, in violation of §§ 187(a) and 664.2 Clerk's Transcript ("CT") I at 18-20. As to all three charges, it was alleged pursuant to § 12022.5(a) that petitioner had personally used a firearm. Id.
Petitioner was tried twice on these charges. The first trial resulted in a hung jury after two African-American jurors voted not guilty. See CT II at 310-12; Excerpts of Record3 ("ER") at325-27. On retrial, jury selection commenced on July 7, 1998 with the distribution of juror questionnaires. See CT II at 313. On July 8, 1998, voir dire began, and on July 9, 1998, Detria Thompson ("Thompson"), an African-American woman, was called as a prospective juror. ER at 104, 192 and 245.
During voir dire, Thompson was initially questioned briefly by defense counsel. See ER at 245-46. She was then questioned by the prosecutor, who began by referring to a notation on Thompson's juror questionnaire indicating that she wished to discuss a matter privately. See id. at 246. The trial court thus excused the jury for a break and, outside of the presence of the other prospective jurors, Thompson shared information regarding a petty theft conviction she sustained while she was a student at California State University, Los Angeles. See id. at 246-48. Thompson stated that she was caught shoplifting some items from a campus bookstore and charged with petty theft, to which she pled guilty and received summary probation. See id. When asked whether she felt she was treated fairly, Thompson answered affirmatively and noted that the incident did not have an effect on her education. See id. at 247. Following this discussion, the other prospective jurors were allowed to return to the courtroom. See id. at 248.
Back in the presence of the other jurors, the prosecutor questioned Thompson about certain responses that she provided on the juror questionnaire, including one response concerning her prior experience with police officers:
Ms. Thompson was not asked about the positive experience with a police officer that she also reported on the questionnaire. Compare id.; ER at 477.
Next, the prosecutor asked Thompson what she meant when she indicated that she disagreed strongly with the proposition "If the prosecution brings someone to trial, that person is probably guilty." ER at 249. Thompson responded, "I mean that I wouldn't assume that because someone is brought forward by the prosecution that they're guilty." Id.
Finally, the prosecutor asked Thompson about her opinion that the criminal justice system treats some people unfairly:
Thompson was ultimately excused when the prosecutor exercised a peremptory strike. ER at 258.
After Thompson was stricken, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the entire jury panel pursuant to People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (1978).5 ER at 324. On July 16, 1998, the trialcourt held a hearing on the motion:
To continue reading
Request your trial