Patrick Grier v. Stephen Kennedy

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Patrick Grier’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court rejected or declined to review claims concerning Batson challenges based on race, gender, and age; jury instructions; and allegedly improper lay opinion testimony. The court relied on AEDPA deference, an independent and adequate state procedural bar, and the absence of a federal question for certain claims.

Holdings

1. The state courts' rejection of Grier's race-based Batson claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts; habeas relief was therefore unavailable.
2. The court presumed that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adjudicated Grier's gender-based Batson claim on the merits and held that the state-court determination was entitled to AEDPA deference.
3. The use of age as a race-neutral justification for peremptory challenges did not provide a basis for federal habeas relief because young adults are not a protected group under clearly established federal law governing peremptory challenges.
4. Federal habeas review of the jury-instruction claim was barred because trial counsel failed to contemporaneously object, Massachusetts treated the claim as procedurally defaulted, and Grier did not establish cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
5. The claim concerning the detective's testimony that a man in a still image was raising his arm was procedurally barred because counsel failed to object. The claim concerning the jacket marked with a “C” presented only an issue of state evidentiary law and therefore was not cognizable on federal habeas review; newly asserted federal theories were also waived.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the state courts unreasonably rejected Grier's race-based Batson challenge to the prosecution's peremptory strikes.
2. Whether the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's failure to expressly discuss Grier's gender-based Batson challenge warranted federal habeas relief.
3. Whether the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges against young prospective jurors violated the Equal Protection Clause.
4. Whether federal habeas review was barred because Grier failed to contemporaneously object to the challenged jury instruction.
5. Whether federal habeas review was available for the detective's challenged testimony, where one portion was procedurally defaulted and the other was presented only as a state-law evidentiary issue.

Disposition

denied