Bennett v. Lynch

Background

Jabrie Bennett sought federal relief from his state convictions for second-degree murder, attempted murder, assault with a semiautomatic weapon, and firearm enhancements. The convictions arose from two January 2013 shootings in Oakland and San Leandro. Bennett received a sentence of 72 years to life in state prison.

Bennett’s petition raised a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a prosecutor from using a peremptory challenge—a strike used to remove a potential juror without stating a cause—solely because of the juror’s race. During jury selection, the prosecutor struck four Black prospective jurors. One Black juror and one Black alternate were ultimately seated. Bennett challenged each of the four strikes, but this petition concerned only prospective juror Domanique J.

State-court proceedings

Domanique J. was a 22-year-old Black man who had recently moved to California. His questionnaire stated that he had a close aunt who had been arrested and convicted for drug trafficking, that he had visited her in jail several times, and that he had himself been arrested for public intoxication. He also wrote that the criminal justice system worked for the most part but had failed in some cases. During questioning, he said he would rather not be involved with criminal or court-related matters and had not felt fairly treated during his own arrest, although he acknowledged receiving a very lenient result.

The prosecutor stated that Domanique J. might sympathize with a person facing prison because of his close relationship with his incarcerated relative. The prosecutor also cited Domanique J.’s views about the criminal justice system. The trial court found those reasons genuine and race-neutral and denied Bennett’s challenges.

The California Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and found no violation of the rule against race-based juror strikes. It recognized that the prosecutor incorrectly referred to Domanique J.’s aunt as his mother and somewhat overstated Domanique J.’s statement about the criminal justice system. But it concluded that these were minor, good-faith mistakes that did not undermine the prosecutor’s credibility. The California Supreme Court later denied review.

Legal standards

The federal court reviewed the state-court decision under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, commonly called AEDPA. Under that law, federal relief generally is unavailable unless the state court’s decision was contrary to clearly established United States Supreme Court law, unreasonably applied that law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

The court also described the three-step Batson inquiry. First, the defendant must show facts supporting an inference that a juror was struck because of race. Second, the prosecutor must give a race-neutral reason. Third, the court must decide whether the defendant has shown purposeful racial discrimination by evaluating the prosecutor’s reasons and credibility in light of all relevant facts.

Court’s analysis

Judge William Orrick considered both de novo review, meaning an independent review of the issue, and the more deferential review required by AEDPA. He concluded that Bennett’s petition failed under either approach.

The court agreed that the prosecutor incorrectly said the incarcerated relative was Domanique J.’s mother rather than his aunt. It nevertheless found the mistake harmless. The record showed that Domanique J. had a close relationship with his aunt, visited her in prison multiple times, and discussed her case with her. The court concluded that the prosecutor’s underlying concern—that Domanique J. might sympathize with someone facing prison—remained the same regardless of whether the relative was his mother or aunt.

The court also found that the prosecutor overstated Domanique J.’s views about the criminal justice system but did not reverse their meaning completely. Domanique J. had written that the system worked for the most part while acknowledging that it failed in some cases. The court determined that this statement could reasonably support the prosecutor’s concern about Domanique J.’s views and did not establish discriminatory intent.

Bennett compared Domanique J. with several non-Black jurors who had criticized the criminal justice system or had some contact with incarcerated people. The court found the comparisons insufficient. It determined that those jurors generally lacked Domanique J.’s close relationship with a relative who had been imprisoned for several years and whom he had visited repeatedly. Their experiences therefore were not sufficiently similar to show that the prosecutor’s reasons were pretexts for racial discrimination.

Bennett also argued that the trial judge improperly supplied an additional reason for the strike by referring to Domanique J.’s negative experience with the criminal justice system. Judge Orrick agreed that the trial court’s description was not fully accurate. But he concluded that the trial court had primarily relied on the prosecutor’s stated reasons and that any error was harmless because the court did not rely solely on its own explanation.

The court further rejected Bennett’s argument that the trial court improperly relied on the fact that one Black juror and one Black alternate remained on the jury. The court explained that this fact could not by itself disprove discrimination, but it was a permissible factor in assessing the prosecutor’s credibility. In any event, the state appellate court had also considered the prosecutor’s individual reasons, the juror comparisons, and the record as a whole.

Disposition

The court concluded that the prosecutor’s reasons for striking Domanique J. were credible and race-neutral and that the strike did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It also concluded that the California Court of Appeal was not objectively unreasonable in reaching the same conclusion under the federal standard governing review of state convictions.

The court denied Bennett’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion does not state that the petition was denied with or without prejudice.