Second Circuit rejects habeas petition in revenge killing

This is a habeas corpus petition filed by an inmate who was convicted of killing someone that he thought had sexually assaulted his girlfriend. The inmate's uncle was also convicted of the killing. At the murder trial in state court, the criminal defendant's lawyer began striking male jurors during the peremptory challenges. The prosecution objected to these challenges, claiming this focus on male jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The case is Murray v. Noeth, issued on April 26. During criminal trials, the parties can strike a certain number of jurors without explanation. (You can also strike jurors for cause if the potential juror is obviously unsuitable to hear the case, such as a juror who knows the parties). If you strike too many white or black or male or female jurors, the other side will make a Batson challenge, named after a Supreme Court case from 1986 that says the lawyer seeking to strike these jurors must advance a race or gender neutral reason for his choices. The trial court has authority to grant or deny the Batson challenge.

Defendant here tried striking a series of male jurors. The thinking was probably that the defense thought these jurors were conservative and pro-prosecution. The trial court said some of these challenges were not legitimate and were based solely on the gender of these potential jurors. The jury that was finally empaneled found Murray guilty, and he then filed a habeas petition claiming the state criminal court violated his constitutional rights in denying him a fair jury. Habeas petitions are common in our world. There is always a constitutional argument that an inmate can make in challenging his conviction. The problem for the inmates is that most of these habeas petitions are dismissed.

Murray loses. The Court of Appeals (Nardini, Park and Sack) observes that the Supreme Court's constitutional framework for these cases does not actually allow you to make constitutional challenges like this. Judge Nardini writes, "The problem with Murray’s claim is that, as the Supreme Court held  in  Rivera  v.  Illinois,  556 U.S.  148,  158  (2009),  a  state  court’s improper  rejection  of  a  defendant’s  peremptory strike  does  not, without more, violate the defendant’s federal constitutional rights." In other words, "the erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge does not require automatic reversal of a defendant’s conviction as a matter of federal law because such an error does not implicate a defendant’s federal constitutional rights. Because a party’s peremptory challenges 'are within the States’ province to grant or withhold,' a defendant’s 'mistaken denial  of  a  state-provided peremptory  challenge  does  not,  without more, violate the Federal Constitution.'”