In 2012, an Oklahoma jury convicted Alonzo Cortez Johnson of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder and sentenced him to life in prison in relation to the murder-for-hire plot against Tulsa businessman, Neal Sweeney. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ("OCCA") rejected a cursory two-page claim predicated upon Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), finding that Johnson failed to establish purposeful discrimination on behalf of the State during jury selection.

In 2021, on habeas proceedings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed a heavily supplemented version of Johnson's Batson claim. Relying upon an argument Johnson never made to the OCCA on direct appeal to reach de novo review, and substituting its own judgment for that of the OCCA, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the OCCA rejected Johnson's Batson claim based upon "an unreasonable determination of the facts" and "an unreasonable application of" Batson.

Whether the Tenth Circuit violated the backward looking nature of § 2254(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the clear mandates announced by this Court in Sexton v. Beaudreaux, 138 S.Ct. 2555, 2560 (2018) (per curiam), Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011), and Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011), when it considered—and based its ultimate decision upon—an argument Johnson never made to the OCCA on direct appeal.

whether-the-tenth-circuit-violated-the-antiterrorism-and-effective-death-penalty-act