In this case involving a Black defendant, the prosecutor struck the sole Black juror remaining on the venire (the only other Black veniremember was struck for cause), after asking her only three questions, two of which focused on race – a subject the juror had not mentioned, and about which the prosecutor did not question white jurors. Then, in attempting to strike the Black juror for cause, the prosecutor mischaracterized her statements in a manner directly contrary to the juror's testimony.

In federal habeas proceedings, the prosecutor claimed that he struck the Black juror because he believed she might be biased against police, prosecutors, and the judicial system – but he did not ask her a single question about those purported biases. In explaining his mischaracterization of her testimony, he blamed the court reporter by suggesting that the trial transcript was inaccurate. He also submitted a sworn declaration in which he falsely claimed that he had compared the Black juror to two seated jurors at the time of the trial and found the seated jurors more favorable, while at his deposition and a later evidentiary hearing, he admitted that he had no recollection of the seated jurors referenced in the declaration and that he did not compare them to the Black juror at the time of the trial.

The question presented is this:

Did the Ninth Circuit err in crediting the prosecutor's stated reasons for the strike and failing to find discriminatory pretext under Batson and Miller-El v. Dretke, under the extraordinary circumstances of this case?

Did the Ninth Circuit err in crediting the prosecutor's stated reasons for the strike and failing to find discriminatory pretext under Batson and Miller-El v. Dretke, under the extraordinary circumstances of this case?