Hernandez-Delgado v. Atchley

Background

Alejandro Hernandez-Delgado was convicted in California Superior Court for Monterey County of first-degree murder, committing the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang, and personally using a firearm. After trial, Juror Number 4 told an investigator that another juror had said Hernandez-Delgado was more guilty because he was from El Salvador and that people from El Salvador were associated with murder and gangs. Hernandez-Delgado sought a new trial based on alleged violations of his rights to due process, a fair trial, and an impartial jury.

The California trial court denied the new-trial motion because it viewed inquiry into jurors’ mental processes as improper. After the United States Supreme Court decided Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, Hernandez-Delgado continued to pursue the juror-bias issue. The California Court of Appeal later reversed the denial of his request to obtain identifying information about jurors and sent the matter back for a hearing. The state court released identifying information for some jurors and alternates on April 29, 2021, subject to a protective order.

Federal Petition and Motion

Hernandez-Delgado filed a federal habeas petition raising 12 claims. The parties agreed that Claims 1 through 7 had been exhausted in state court, Claims 8 through 11 had not been exhausted, and Claim 12 had been partially exhausted. He asked the federal court to hold the proceedings in abeyance while he exhausted the remaining claims in state court.

A federal court generally cannot consider a habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Under the procedure discussed in Rhines v. Weber, however, the court may stay such a petition when the petitioner shows good cause for not exhausting the claims earlier, the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and the petitioner has not intentionally delayed the litigation.

Court’s Analysis

The court found good cause. It reasoned that the juror-bias claim was based on a change in the law and newly available evidence. When Hernandez-Delgado’s trial court considered his new-trial motion, it applied the then-existing rule against examining jurors’ mental processes. Peña-Rodriguez later held that such rules must give way when a juror makes a clear statement showing reliance on racial stereotypes or animus. The identifying juror information needed to investigate Hernandez-Delgado’s claim was not available by the federal petition deadline.

The court also found that the juror-bias claim was potentially meritorious. It noted that Peña-Rodriguez recognized that a juror’s clear reliance on racial stereotypes may implicate the constitutional right to a jury trial. The court declined to conclude that the claim was plainly meritless merely because other jurors reportedly reprimanded the juror who made the statements. It relied in part on the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the claim warranted investigation.

Finally, the court found no indication that Hernandez-Delgado had intentionally delayed the litigation. The respondent did not argue that he had used intentionally dilatory tactics, and Hernandez-Delgado filed his federal petition before the deadline and filed the stay motion one day later.

Disposition

The court concluded that all three requirements for a Rhines stay were met and granted Hernandez-Delgado’s motion to hold the federal habeas proceedings in abeyance. The court did not reach the merits of the habeas claims or decide whether the conviction or sentence should be overturned. The opinion is signed by United States District Judge Lucy H. Koh.