Case Explained: ANTONIO DOYLE V. TERRY ROYAL, ET AL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-29 Docket: 3:00-cv-00101- The Ninth Circuit denied petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a federal habeas corpus case brought by a Nevada death row inmate under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, affirming in part and vacating in part the district court’s denial of relief regarding a *Batson v. Kentucky* claim. The panel previously held that the Nevada Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by refusing to require the prosecutor to explain an initial peremptory strike against a black prospective juror, even after later strikes of other black jurors were found to be race-neutral. Consequently, the panel vacated the district court’s denial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to elicit the prosecutor’s reasons for the first strike. The dissenting opinion argues that the majority disregarded the deference owed state courts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Judge Tung, joined by four other judges, contended that the Nevada Supreme Court properly applied *Batson* by considering the “totality of relevant facts,” including race-neutral explanations for subsequent strikes, when determining whether a prima facie case of discrimination existed for the initial strike. The dissent asserts that no clearly established federal law requires a trial judge to revisit an initial strike after later strikes are validated as non-discriminatory, and that the majority substituted its own view of *Batson* for the state court’s reasonable application of the totality-of-circumstances test. The practical consequence is that the original panel decision granting habeas relief and ordering a new evidentiary hearing remains in effect following the denial of rehearing. The case proceeds toward an evidentiary hearing to determine if the initial peremptory strike was racially motivated, while the dissenting judges maintain that the state court’s decision should have been upheld under AEDPA standards. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.