Lockyer Asks Justices to Rein In 9th Circuit Court

California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer urged the Supreme Court on Monday to shield the state courts from being second-guessed on criminal cases by the judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal of the federal appellate courts.

He was challenging a recent 9th Circuit ruling that reversed the 9-year-old drug conviction of a Los Angeles man because of possible race bias in the selection of one of the jurors.

The justices should make clear there is “a presumption of correctness for state court fact-finding,” said Lockyer, making his first appearance before the high court.

Lockyer complained that 320 lawyers at the state Department of Justice spend most of their time responding to criminal appeals in the federal courts.

In the United States, most crimes are prosecuted by the states. In such cases, convicted criminals can pursue two lines of appeal: one in the state courts, followed by a second in the federal courts through a so-called writ of habeas corpus.

In 1996, Congress tried to make it harder for federal judges to grant the appeals from state inmates. The new law said factual issues decided by state judges “shall be presumed correct” and cannot be overturned unless there is “clear and convincing evidence” that a mistake was made.

Lockyer said 9th Circuit judges seemed to ignore the law when they reversed state criminal convictions.

Nonetheless, the case heard by the high court showed how hard that standard can be to apply, particularly in cases involving jury selection.

On the one hand, prosecutors and defense lawyers are free to exclude a set number of potential jurors based on a hunch that they will not look favorably on their case. On the other hand, the Constitution forbids lawyers from excluding a potential juror because of his or her race.

In 1996, Steven Collins, an African American, was tried in Los Angeles Superior Court on charges of cocaine possession. Because he had two prior convictions, a third would send him to prison for at least 25 years, Lockyer told the court.

One black male was seated on the jury. A defense lawyer for Collins objected when the prosecutor moved to exclude two black women. One was young, single and lived in Inglewood. A second was a grandmother whose daughter had a cocaine conviction.

When faced with such an objection, the judge must ask the prosecutor to explain the objection to see whether race bias was at work.

“I was concerned with them being too tolerant for this type of case,” the prosecutor replied. Moreover, the younger one had “rolled her eyes” in response to questions.

The judge said he would give “the benefit of the doubt” to the prosecutor and upheld the decision to remove both women. Collins was convicted.

He appealed, contending he was a victim of racial bias in the jury selection. His appeals focused on the exclusion of the young juror from Inglewood. The California courts rejected his appeals, as did a federal magistrate and a U.S. district judge in Los Angeles.

However, the 9th Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, reversed the conviction. Judge Richard Paez said the prosecutor’s reasons for excluding the young juror from Inglewood were “wholly implausible, unpersuasive and a pretext for discrimination on the basis of race.”

Lockyer appealed to the Supreme Court, and lawyers for 16 other states joined California in urging protection from such rulings.

The 9th Circuit “substituted its own factual inferences” for the decisions of the state’s judges, Lockyer said.

Mark Drozdowski, a public defender in Los Angeles, said the justices should affirm the strict rule against racial bias in jury selections and uphold the 9th Circuit’s decision. “The prosecutor in this case did not give a single persuasive reason for striking” the juror, he said.

During the hourlong argument, the justices struggled to make sense of what happened.

Does the prosecutor “have an obligation to give a coherent explanation?” asked Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

“In this case, the prosecutor seemed pretty confused,” added Justice John Paul Stevens.

Nonetheless, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the 1996 law seemed to tip the case in favor of the state. “Congress was trying to tighten the habeas procedure,” he said, and he questioned whether the defense lawyers had “clear and convincing evidence” that the California courts had made a mistake.

Most of the justices sounded as though they were inclined to reverse the 9th Circuit’s decision. It will be several months before an opinion is issued.

The court also:

* Agreed to decide whether it is too hard for criminal defendants to escape punishment because they are insane. Many states tightened their laws after John W. Hinckley Jr., the man who shot President Reagan in 1981, won an insanity claim.

Arizona said mentally disturbed persons must prove they do not know right from wrong, and on that basis, an Arizona judge upheld a 17-year-old’s conviction for shooting a police officer, despite evidence the youth had a severe mental illness. (Clark vs. Arizona.)

* Agreed to decide whether employers violate the law if they transfer a worker who has filed a discrimination complaint. (Burlington Northern vs. White.)

* Refused to block a lawsuit against police in San Jose who were sued by the local Hells Angels motorcycle club after shooting and killing several aggressive dogs when carrying out a search warrant at the club’s facility.