Rice v. Collins
| Rice v. Collins | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 5, 2005 Decided January 18, 2006 |
|
| Full case name | Rice, Warden, et al. v. Collins |
| Docket nos. | 04-52 |
| Citations | 546 U.S. 333 (more) |
| Prior history | Superior Court of California convicted defendant; California Court of Appeal upheld conviction, People v. Collins, No. B106939 (Dec. 12, 1997); Supreme Court of California denied petition for review; United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice respondent's petition for a writ of habeas corpus; Ninth Circuit reversed, 348 F. 3d 1082 (2003); cert. granted, 545 U. S. ___ (2005) |
| Holding | |
| Habeas corpus relief may not be granted on the basis of debatable inferences used to overturn the trial court's finding. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Breyer, joined by Souter |
| Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(2) | |
Rice v. Collins 546 U.S. 333 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to remove a young African American woman, Juror 16, from a defendant's drug trial jury in a California court case, based on her youth and on her alleged "eye rolling" in answer to a question. The defendant, Steven Martell Collins, challenged the striking of Juror 16, saying her exclusion was based on race, but the trial judge agreed that the prosecutor's reasons were race-neutral. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling, and the Federal District Court dismissed Collins' habeas corpus petition with prejudice. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, stating that the dismissal was unreasonable based, among other reasons, on the lack of evidence that the eye rolling had occurred.
In Batson v. Kentucky (1986) the Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor cannot systematically use peremptory challenges to strike jurors based on race. The court set forth a three-step process in evaluating claims of discrimination. First, the defendant must present reasons that support the contention that the prosecutor's peremptory challenges were based on race. Second, the State must produce race-neutral explanations for the peremptory challenge. Third, the trial court must determine if the peremptory challenges were based on race or on other factors. In Georgia v. McCollum (1992) the Court ruled that the three-step procedure applied equally to the defense, and in J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994) to challenges based on gender. However the Court has always held, inter alia, the ultimate burden of proving or disproving racial motivation for the strike always falls on the party challenging the strike.
...
Wikipedia