Mayes v. Premo, No. 12-35461 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of felony murder and other offenses, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that the state trial court's decision to credit the prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for striking an African-American venireman, when viewed in light of the totality of the relevant facts, was not an objectively unreasonable application of Batson v. Kentucky. The court also concluded that the state trial court's decision to admit a codefendant's hearsay statement was not an objectively unreasonable application of the Ohio v. Roberts framework. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition raising challenges under the Equal Protection and Confrontation Clauses to a conviction of murder and related offenses. The panel held that the trial court’s decision to credit the prosecution’s race-neutral explanation for striking a black potential juror, when viewed in light of the totality of the relevant facts, was not an objectively unreasonable application of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The panel also held that the trial court’s decision to admit a co- defendant’s hearsay statement was not an objectively unreasonable application of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980). Judge Pregerson dissented. He would grant the habeas petition because the state trial court’s denial of the Batson claim was contrary to clearly established federal law and rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 21, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.