3rd strike sentence reinstated

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/19/BAGTQGPLPF1.DTL&hw=Three+strikes&sn=001&sc=1000
SAN FRANCISCO
3rd strike sentence reinstated
Bob Egelko, SF Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006

The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated a Southern California man's drug
conviction and sentence of 25 years to life Wednesday, ruling that an
appeals court had erred in overturning the sentence on grounds that
the prosecutor improperly barred a black woman from the jury.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco should not
have second-guessed the findings of the Los Angeles County trial
judge and state appeals courts, the high court said in a unanimous
decision. The state courts found that the prosecutor hadn't shown
racial bias in removing the African American juror.

The defendant, Steven Martell Collins, who is African American, was
convicted of possessing a tenth of a gram of cocaine in 1996. He was
sentenced under California's three-strikes law because of previous
convictions for robbery and rape.

The Ninth Circuit appeals court granted him a new trial in a 2-1
ruling in 2003, saying the prosecutor's stated reasons for removing
the young black woman were pretexts for discrimination.

The prosecutor said she had challenged the juror because she rolled
her eyes while being questioned by the judge; because her youth,
unmarried status and lack of roots in the community might lead her to
be tolerant of drug use; and because the prosecutor wanted gender
balance on the jury.

The trial judge rejected the prosecutor's gender balance argument,
because Supreme Court rulings have said that's an unacceptable reason
to exclude a potential juror. The judge acknowledged not having seen
the eye-rolling but took the prosecutor's word for it and accepted
her remaining explanations.

At least one African American was on the jury that convicted Collins,
according to court records.

In the 2003 ruling, the appeals court said there was no evidence that
the juror's age, lack of roots or any of her answers to pretrial
questions showed her to be tolerant of drug use.

In its ruling Wednesday, the Supreme Court said the Ninth Circuit had
failed to follow "rules that limit its role and authority'' in
reviewing state convictions.

A 1996 federal law requires federal courts to accept state judges'
factual conclusions unless they are unreasonable, Justice Anthony
Kennedy noted. He said the trial judge had reasonably concluded that
the prosecutor was telling the truth about the juror's eye-rolling
and the nonracial reasons for her removal.

The case is Rice vs. Collins, 04-52.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko [at] sfchronicle.com.

Page B - 3