Miller-El v. Johnson

Fifth Circuit

Miller-El v. Johnson

330 F.3d 690, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8856, 2003 WL 21054666

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 12, 2003

Docket00-10784

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 330 F.3d 690 (Miller-El v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller-El v. Johnson, 330 F.3d 690, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8856, 2003 WL 21054666 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court has reversed the decision of this Court entered on August 7, 2001, and published at 261 F.3d 445, and has remanded this case to our Court “for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion” decided February 25, 2003 in No. 01-7662.

*691 For the reasons stated by the Supreme Court in its opinion, we now issue a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on Petitioner’s jury selection claim premised on Batson 1 . Accordingly, as suggested by the Supreme Court, the issue now before our Court is whether “Petitioner [has] demonstrate[d] that the state trial court’s findings of the absence of purposeful discrimination was incorrect by clear and convincing evidence, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) and that the corresponding factual determination was ‘“objectively unreasonable” in light of the record before the court,’ when viewed in the light of (1) ‘Petitioner’s historical evidence of racial discrimination by the district attorney’s office’, (2) the ‘substantial evidence Petitioner put forth in support of his pri-ma facia case’, (3) the decisions of both the prosecution and the defense to call for a jury shuffle and (4) the evidence proffered by the defense as to disparate questioning of prospective jurors by the prosecution.” We direct the parties to submit supplemental briefs focusing specifically on these issues with full and complete record citations as to relevant evidence and testimony. We instruct the clerk of this court to set a briefing schedule so that briefing will be complete within 45 days.

1

. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court has reversed the decision of this Court entered on August 7, 2001, and published at 261 F.3d 445, and has remanded this case to our Court “for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion” decided February 25, 2003 in No. 01-7662.

*691 For the reasons stated by the Supreme Court in its opinion, we now issue a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on Petitioner’s jury selection claim premised on Batson 1 . Accordingly, as suggested by the Supreme Court, the issue now before our Court is whether “Petitioner [has] demonstrate[d] that the state trial court’s findings of the absence of purposeful discrimination was incorrect by clear and convincing evidence, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) and that the corresponding factual determination was ‘“objectively unreasonable” in light of the record before the court,’ when viewed in the light of (1) ‘Petitioner’s historical evidence of racial discrimination by the district attorney’s office’, (2) the ‘substantial evidence Petitioner put forth in support of his pri-ma facia case’, (3) the decisions of both the prosecution and the defense to call for a jury shuffle and (4) the evidence proffered by the defense as to disparate questioning of prospective jurors by the prosecution.” We direct the parties to submit supplemental briefs focusing specifically on these issues with full and complete record citations as to relevant evidence and testimony. We instruct the clerk of this court to set a briefing schedule so that briefing will be complete within 45 days.

1

. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

330 F.3d 690, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8856, 2003 WL 21054666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-el-v-johnson-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack