Yes, the title of this post is obtuse. And we’re a bit late in commenting on this. But the US Supreme Court on June 18 in a sense validated a 15-year-old California Supreme Court decision affirming a death penalty.
The state high court, by a 5-2 vote, had found error in the trial judge’s ex parte handling of the defendant’s Batson challenge to the prosecution’s peremptory dismissal of seven prospective jurors, but it found the error harmless. (People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243.) Then-Chief Justice Ronald George dissented, stating that “applicable state and federal precedent clearly requires that we reverse defendant’s conviction and remand this case for a new trial.”
Last year, a divided Ninth Circuit panel held that the error wasn’t harmless and ordered habeas corpus relief. (Ayala v. Wong (9th Cir. 2014) 756 F.3d 656.) Ten days ago, the federal high court reversed the Ninth Circuit by a 5-4 vote. (Davis v. Ayala (2015) __ U.S. __ [2015 WL 2473373].)
The US Supreme Court decision can’t be considered a full vindication of the California Supreme Court’s opinion, however, because the federal high court applied a standard of review that is much more deferential to the state high court than the standard the state high court was required to apply in originally reviewing the trial court Batson error. On direct appeal, to avoid reversal, a Batson error must be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. On habeas review, however, the standard is practically the opposite — it is the prisoner who has the burden of establishing that the error resulted in actual prejudice.
Harmless error is a hot button issue at the California Supreme Court. (See here and here.) So is Batson error. (Here.) The US Supreme Court’s decision might not make much of a difference to the California Supreme Court’s handling of those issues in the future, however, because the US Supreme Court applied the dramatically different federal habeas standard of review for harmless error and presumed Batson error.