WPC< [Uن;L͟[UٱͲ>o>n|%L&ma(!bzqX1&;O?۷Ni~^s[KfJ#ZxthDP2sلZJv _%wK8dd; o911^8/E@˗"gtԲDgAE\i]U81"vrL6QSv~&9{-#3:ctNd-($;[KGP'^o L8A}-.kkQbY!4\SS*ngK'M<>l`Zc| *s>=Cܿ dMb9\kDU"Qf'= ve1i]eڲ}t!+O&pCXG/#dhJ5<}L)C%ɫdR# UN %7 0=U:N^ w4!5D mF 1] 72, 1u^ 72 0c 0ch 0/c 0w. 1 72, 0^ 0 0 0< 0 0 0D 1 72 0U 0! 0 0 0v 0)! 0! 0}" 0# 0# 0x$ 0C% 0% 0& 08' 0' 0h( 0( 0~) 0:* 0+ 0+ 0P, 0, 0- 0. 0. 1(/ 72/f/a//0 03El4 0 Nn4 14 72?5bq5y5 0I8 0D%9i9PD;D;D;P;n;;;;;;;; BR<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R<R< B*o<HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(p2$     USUS.,-+> Z"Book Antiqua ե2 J2:i+003|xUS4O37;CO_s11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.13#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (;s$2#  a  .3  0  (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#0Y?OU[agmsyLettersLettersA.a.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# xGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  xACcgkosw{TrianglesTriangle Bullet;TABLE Ahttp://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jun20051230/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-6964.pdf  A)' XAXXX|XXAUSUS.,  _  Y| FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT#|Y#  AWB) ,d3 EV,A   || #||#|730HarrisonStreet,Suite201SanFrancisco,California94107(415)4953119Facsimile:(415)4950166#|# #s  (3)$ 2!  XUXXXXXUUSUS.,  (O$x+!?[_cgkoswSquaresSquare BulletD- -  HP$ XAXXX|XXAUSUS.,    1    _ ` Linkstofederalhabeasformscanbefoundat  4N CO  5  http://www.fdap.org/t-forms.html#habeas6COH  7 DGԀand   4O CO  5  http://www.adi-sandiego.com/practice_forms_motion.html6COH  7 ,.((3P$ 2!  XXXXXXUSUS.,      1  (%$  1    HP$ XAXXX|XXAUSUS.,    2    _ ` Linkstostatehabeasformscanbefoundat  4K CO  5  http://www.fdap.org/t-forms.html#habeas6CO  7 DF.http://www.fdap.org/t-forms.html#habeashttp://www.fdap.org/t-forms.html#habeashttp://www.adi-sandiego.com/practice_forms_motion.html d&0 d d 2!  XAXXX|XXAUSUS.,  _ @  F8Kdd8  @5PostConvictionLitigationofStage1(PrimaFacieCase)  _Batson_ԀClaimsin   CaliforniaCourtsFollowingtheU.S.SupremeCourtsDecisioninJohnsonv.   California    " |  July2005#| ">#    ymThismemorandumisforattorneyswhoareraising,orwhohaveraisedandlost,   Stage1_Batson_Ԁissues.Thememorandumsetsforthsomepossibleoptionsyou   mightconsider,inresponsetotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsdecisionin   JohnsonvCalifornia.   OnJune13,2005,in4? F CO  5  Johnsonv.California6CO  7 *,____U.S.____,125_S.Ct_.2410,the , SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesheldthattheCaliforniaSupremeCourthad 6 placedtoohighaburdenon_movants_Ԁtomakeaprimafacieshowingof @ discriminatoryuseofperemptorychallenges.Thestatehighcourthadheldthat J aprimafaciecaseofdiscriminatoryuseofperemptorychallengesisestablished T onlywhenthe_movant_Ԁshowsthatitis morelikelythannot thatthejurorwas  ^ challengedforanimproperreason.(Peoplev.Johnson(2003)30Cal.4th1302, h 1307.)TheU.S.SupremeCourtheld,instead,that adefendantsatisfiesthe r requirementsof_Batson_sfirststepbyproducingevidencesufficienttopermitthe ) | trialjudgetodraw aninferencethatdiscriminationhasoccurred .(Johnsonv. 3! California,125_S.Ct_.at2417(emphasisadded).)TheCourtmadeclearthat ="  Californiasmorelikelythannotstandardisatoddswiththeprimafacie G# inquirymandatedby_Batson_.(Id.at2419.)(Unlessotherwiseindicated, Q$ subsequentreferencesto JohnsonaretotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt [% decisioninthatcase.) e& Johnsonshouldbefullyretroactivetopendingcasesandcasesalreadyfinalon y( directreview.TheCourtdidnotappeartocreateanewrule.TheCourtwas ) merelystatingwhatthelawwasunder_Batson_allalong.BecauseJohnsondidnot *  announceanewrule,itsholdingappliestoallcases:whetherornotfinalon +!! directreview.Ofcourse,theremaybeproceduralbarriers"suchasthefederal ,"" habeasstatuteoflimitations"tousingJohnsoninsomeclosedcasesandmany -## petitionerswillnotobtainanewhearingontheir_Batson_Stage1claim,even  thoughthe_Batson_claimwasdecidedunderanincorrectstandard.And,forother   petitioners,thestateorfederalcourtmayconcludethepetitionerisnotentitledto  reliefbecause,evenundertheproperstandard,aprimafaciecasewasnot  established. ( Thismemorandumwilldescribepossiblecoursesofactioninmakinguseof  < Johnson.Factorstoconsiderindecidingwhataction,ifany,totakearealso  F provided.Giventhemanyfactorsatplay,thatdecisionwillbehighlycase  P specificanditisnotpossible,withthepossibleexceptionofthecasesstill  Z  pendinginthecourtofappeal,togeneralizeastowhatactionisbestineach d  categoryofcases. n    AvailableProcedures  2  ! ! N (Y03"3"  3>2Y  A  .3  0    DirectAppealStillPendingInStateCourt/IssueWasRaised(orWillBe 6 Raised)onAppeal: Inanypendingdirectappealinwhichappellant 8 raised,orintendstoraise,errorinfailingtofindaprimafaciecase,Johnson B isfullyapplicableandcounselcanarguethatthetrialcourt"previously L boundbytheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsdecisions"necessarilyapplied V thewrongstandard.Remember,thisdoesnotinvolveraisinganewissue, ` itsamatterofpresentingnewcontrollingauthority.Herearesome j options,dependingonthestatusofthecase:3>k݌t(#(# Ќ  *=W>ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,dd ,dd +  + +Status =,!< =Option(s) -#!< -Pre_AOB_   Inthe_AOB_,relyonJohnsontoestablishthatthe  trialcourtappliedthewrongstandardinfinding   noprimafaciecase.  ! Post_AOB_/PreReply 4# Brief  >$  Fileasupplementalopeningbrief,accompanied 4#! byanapplicationtofilethesame.Orsimplyrely >$" onJohnsoninthereplybrief.Aslongastheissue H% # wasalreadyraisedintheopeningbrief,itis R&!$ propertosimplyaddthenewauthorityinthe \'"% replybrief.  f(#& Post_AOB_/Pre d Argument  n Preargumentnewauthorityletter.Althoughthe d RulesofCourtdontspecificallyauthorizesuch n  filingsintheCourtofAppeal,somedivisions (x expresslyauthorizetheminoralargumentnotices 2 andotherswillroutinelyacceptthem.Ifyoure <  notsureonwhethersuchaletterwillbeaccepted F  orwhetheritrequiresleaveofthecourt,check P   withyourprojectbuddy.  Z   PostArgument/Pre  H  Opinion:  R  Lettertothecourtgivingnoticeofnewauthority.  H  Note:suchalettermaytechnicallyrequirea R  motiontovacatesubmission.   \  PostOpinion/Court   ofAppealOpinion  NotYetFinal   Petitionforrehearing.Ifitispastthenormal15   daysforapetitionforrehearing(rules25(b)(1),  33.1),alatepetitionmaybefiledwiththe  permissionofthecourt. Beforethedecisionis  finalandforgoodcause,thepresidingjusticemay " relieveapartyfromafailuretofileatimely , petitionoranswer(rule25(b)(4)).  6 FinalinCourtof  Appeal;Petitionfor  ReviewNotYetFiled   Simplyaddthenewauthoritytothepetitionfor  review.   PetitionforReview 6 Pending  @  FileasupplementalletterintheCalifornia 6! SupremeCourtadvisingtheCourtofthenew @" authorityanditsapplicabilitytoyourcase. J#  "3"  3"2Y  B  .3  0    PetitionforReviewDenied;90DayCertiorariWindowStillOpen;Issue !# RaisedinCourtofAppeal3"*#݌"$(#(# Ќ  Option1:PetitionforcertiorariaskingtheU.S.SupremeCourttovacatethe $& decisionbelow,andremandforreconsiderationinlightofJohnson.TheU.S. % ' SupremeCourthasalreadyissuedonesuch_GVR_Ԁ(grant,vacate&remand)order &!( inlightofJohnson.(Peoplev.Allen,_U.S.S.Ct_.No.046176,OrderfiledJune20, '#) 2005.)UponreturnofthecasetothestateCourtofAppeal,thecasewouldagain ( $* beinthepostureofapendingdirectappeal,withtheoriginalappointmentof )%+ counselstillopen. * &, _Note:ifthesupremecourtdeniescertiorari,youwouldthenhaveavailablethe  optionsdescribedbelowinCategory_C._   Option2:Moveinthecourtofappealforrecallofthe_remittitur_.Ifthe_remittitur_  isrecalled,thecasewouldagainbeinthepostureofapendingdirectappeal, ( withtheoriginalappointmentofcounselstillopen.Ifthecourtdeclinestorecall  2 the_remittitur_,filingafederalhabeascorpuspetitionwouldbealogicalnextstep.  < Option3:Haveyourclientgostraighttofederalcourtwithahabeascorpus  P petition.Astatecourtofappealappointmentdoesnotcoverfederalhabeas  Z  corpusproceedings.Underthisoption,counselmightconsidersendingtheclient d  theappropriatefederalhabeascorpuspetitionandinforma_pauperis_Ԁforms. G I%  1       n  "3"  3+2Y  C  .3  0    PetitionforReviewDenied;90DaystoFileCert.PetitionClosed; 2  _AEDPA_ԀSOLHasNotRun: 3+ ,݌4(#(# Ќ  Option1:statehabeascorpuspetition 8 Option2:motionforrecallofthe_remittitur_ L Note:astooptions1and2inthiscategory,sincethedirectappealisalready ` final,preparationofthehabeaspetitionormotiontorecallmaynotbe j compensable.Counselcouldasktobeappointeduponfilingofthehabeas t petition,butonlyifanordertoshowcauseissues,isappointmentofcounsel ~ mandatory.Ifamotiontorecallthe_remittitur_Ԁisgranted,thedirectappealwould  bereopenedandtheappointmentofappellatecounselrevived.  Note:Asanalternativetocounselpreparingahabeascorpuspetition,another   optionwouldbeforcounseltosendtheclientahabeascorpusformandprovide ! somesimpleadviceforcompletingandfilingit.Inparticular,counselmight "  recommendthatonline6oftheformpetition(GroundsforRelief)thattheclient # statesomethingtotheeffectthat,inlightofJohnson,thetrialcourtappliedthe $   wrongstandardindeterminingwhetheraprimafacieshowingofdiscrimination %(!  wasmadeunder_Batson_.J I%  2      ׀Counselmightalsoprovidetheclientwithanother   copyofthestatecourtofappealopiniontoattachtothehabeascorpuspetition.   & ( Option3:federalhabeas  Note:Whethertogostraighttofederalcourtinthissituationwilldependona  2 '(r 3numberofconsiderationsnotedinthe factorssectionbelowandishighlycase  < dependent.  F &  "3"  3-52Y  D  .3  0    _AEDPA_ԀStatuteofLimitationsHasRun: 3-5]5݌ Z (#(# Ќ  OnlyOption:statehabeasproceedings.'!5(SeenoteinsectionCabove.) ^  "3"  362Y  E  .3  0    FederalHabeasPetition(orAppealtoNinthCircuit)isPending:366݌"r (#(# Ќ  While,theoretically,anoptionwouldbetofileastatehabeaspetitionandrequest &v astayoffederalproceedings,itwouldseemthatthemostlogicaloptionwould 0 betosimplycontinuewiththefederalproceedings. :   FactorstoConsiderinDecidingWhichProceduretoUse  N 8! ! D(+!y0"3"  392+!3  0    Istherearealisticchancethestatecourtofappealwouldreachadifferent R conclusionaboutwhetheraprimafacieshowingwasmadeuponapplying \ thecorrectstandard?If,uponrecallofthe_remittitur_,followinga_GVR_,or f inastatehabeas,thestatecourtsareunlikelytoreachadifferentresult, p proceedingtofederalcourtwithoutrevisitingtheissueinstatecourtmay z beappropriate.Thismaydependuponthecourtordivisionandthe  reasoningoftheoriginalopinion.39:݌ (#(# Ќ  "3"  33=2+!3  0    Theclarityofthetrialcourtsdecisionorthecourtofappealsopinionmay " informwhichproceduretouse,orwhetherreliefinstatecourtisatall # realistic.Ononehand,thedecisionoropinionmayshowthatthecourt $  clearlyreliedonthewrongstandard.Ontheotherhand,ifthedecision %!  showsthecourtwouldhavedeniedreliefunderanystandard,pursuing &"! furtherreliefinthatcourtcouldbefutile.33=`=݌'$#"(#(# Ќ  "3"  3?2+!3  0    IndeterminingthestrengthofthepostJohnson_Batson_ԁclaim,considerthe  timingofthetrialjudgesrulingorthecourtofappealsopinion.Wasit   beforethePeoplev.Box(2000)23Cal.4th1153,1188fn.7decisionequating  thetwostandards( astronglikelihoodmeansareasonableinference)?  WasitbetweenBoxandtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsJohnsondecision? ( RulingsmadeaftertheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsJohnsondecision,but  2 beforetheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecision,mightpresentthe  < strongestclaimsthatthestatecourtnecessarilyappliedthewrong  F standard.3?@݌ P(#(# Ќ  "3"  3C2+!3  0    StateHabeasv.Recallof_Remittitur_?Theseoptionsaretosomeextent d  fungible,andthebetterapproachmaydependonthepreferencesofthe n  particulardistrictcourtofappeal,aswellashowmuchtimehaspassed (x  sincetheappealbecamefinal.Thelongertheperiodsincetheconclusionof 2  thedirectappeal,thelesssuitablerecallofthe_remittitur_Ԁwouldbe.3C%D݌<(#(# Ќ  "3"  3F2+!3  0    Availabilityofcounsel?Uponreturningtothestatecourtofappealbyway P ofaU.S.SupremeCourtGVRorderorbyrecalloftheremittitur,thedirect Z appealisrevivedandtheclientwillproceedwithcounsel.Instatehabeas d corpusproceedings,however,thereisnoguaranteeofcounselunlessthe n courtissuesanordertoshowcause.Similarly,thereisnorighttocounsel x innoncapitalfederalhabeasproceedings.Unlessanevidentiaryhearingis  ordered,appointmentofcounselisatthediscretionofthedistrictcourt  judge(ortheNinthCircuit,ifonappeal).3FF݌(#(# Ќ  "3"  3)J2+!3  0    Istimeoftheessence?Inshortsentencecases,thedecisiononhowto  proceedmaybedrivenbythespeedwithwhicheachcourtmoves.Federal  districtcourthabeasproceedingsarenotoriouslyslow.3)JVJ݌ (#(# Ќ  "3"  3K2+!3  0    Normalconcernsabouttheonerousfederalhabeasstandardofreview(28 "" U.S.C.2254(d))maynotbeaweightyconsiderationinthisunusual #, situation.TheNinthCircuithasrepeatedlyheldthatapplicationofthe $6  wrongstandardfortheprimafaciestandardrendersthestatecourt %@!  decisioncontrarytoU.S.SupremeCourtauthorityand,thus,theclaimis &J"! revieweddenovoinfederalcourt,evenunderAEDPA.Fernandezv.Roe, (T#" 286F.3d1073,1077(9thCir.2002);Cooperwoodv.Cambra,245F.3d1042, )^$#  1046-47(9thCir.2001);Wadev.Terhune,202F.3d1190(9thCir.2000). *h%$ Thoughitaroseondirectappeal,JohnsonappearstovindicatetheNinth  CircuitspositionthatBatsondictatestheinferencestandard.3KL݌ (#(#     &  OtherDevelopmentstoWatchForinBatsonCases   =PBecausethosereadingthismemorandumarelitigatingBatsonclaims,acoupleof  & other'LPcases,decidedandundecided,areworthmentioning.  0 ! ! D(+!xyD"3"  3&R2+!3  0    MillerElv.Dretke(2005)125S.Ct.2317(decidedthesamedayasJohnson).  D ThisisMillerElII,thedecisionfollowingtheFifthCircuitsdecisiononthe  N  meritsaffirmingthedenialofhabeascorpusrelief.(InMillerElI,theCourt X  hadreversedtheFifthCircuitsdenialofacertificateofappealability.) b  MillerElvalidatesjurorcomparisonisalegitimatemeansofassessing l  whethertheperemptorychallengewasbasedonanimpermissiblefactors: &v   Morepowerfulthanthesebarestatistics,however,areside-by-side 0 comparisonsofsomeblackvenirepanelistswhowerestruckandwhite : panelistsallowedtoserve.Italsoprovidesinsightintoawiderangeof D otherevidence(someofitfromoutsidethecourtroom)thatcanbe N consideredinevaluatingaBatsonclaim.3&RVR݌X(#(# Ќ  "3"  3V2+!3  0    Peoplev.Ibarra,Cal.SupremeCourtno.S124067,rev.gr.June9,2004. l Presentsthisquestionregardingremedy: InlightoftheCourtofAppeal's v findingofWheeler/Batsonerror(Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258;  Batsonv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79),whatistheappropriateremedyin  thiscase-outrightreversalofdefendant'sconvictionoralimitedremand  topermitthetrialcourttoinquireintotheprosecutor'sreasonsfor  removingminorityjurors?Ibarraisfullybriefed,buthasnotbeenargued  yet.