Rodriguez Infante v. Martel, No. 18-55286 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition in which petitioner alleged that the trial judge dismissed the juror for race-related reasons and so ran afoul of the prohibition on racial discrimination in jury selection.
As a preliminary matter, the panel held that Haney v. Adams, 641 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2011), did not bar consideration of the merits of petitioner's equal protection claim where he challenged a judge's jury strike for cause, rather than an attorney's peremptory challenge. On the merits, the panel held that the state courts correctly determined that the judge's concerns reflected the juror's own statements of race-related bias, not discriminatory reliance by the judge on the juror's race. Likewise, petitioner's due process and Sixth Amendment claims also failed.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of California state prisoner Tomas Rodriguez Infante’s habeas corpus petition in which Infante maintained that a trial judge struck an impaneled juror for race-related reasons, running afoul of the prohibition on racial discrimination in jury selection. The panel held that because Infante challenges a judge’s jury strike for cause, and not an attorney’s peremptory challenge, Haney v. Adams, 641 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a petitioner may not raise a Batson claim in a habeas petition if the petitioner failed to object under Batson to the peremptory strike at trial), does not bar consideration of the merits of Infante’s equal protection claim. On the merits, the panel held that because the judge’s concerns reflected the juror’s own statements that the juror would be biased, not discriminatory reliance by the judge on the juror’s race, the judge’s strike did not violate Infante’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause. The panel concluded that Infante’s due process and Sixth Amendment arguments fail for the same reason. INFANTE V. MARTEL 3
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.