Mitcham v. Davis (103 F. Supp. 3d 1091, 2015)

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS TO CLAIM D’S SUBCLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner was found guilty in 1984 of murder and attempted murder during a robbery. Petitioner is African American. His victims were Caucasian. During voir dire, the prosecutor struck 100 percent (eight of eight) of African Americans called to the jury box. At the time of Petitioner’s trial, People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (1978), which held the use of peremptory challenges to strike venirepersons solely' on the basis of race to be a violation of the 'California Constitution, had been the law in California for six years. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), had not yet been decided. Petitioner’s counsel did not object under Wheeler to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges. In a subclaim of claim D of his federal habeas petition, Petitioner argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to strike all African Americans called to the jury box. For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas corpus as to claim D’s subclaim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court dismisses Petitioner’s remaining claims as moot.

BACKGROUND

In 1984, a jury in Oakland, California, sentenced Petitioner to death following convictions for first-degree murder, attempted murder, robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and a special circumstance finding that he committed the murder in the course of robbery. Evidence at trial established that on April 5, 1983, Petitioner robbed Ormond’s Jewelry Store in Oakland. During the robbery, Petitioner murdered the proprietor, James Ormond, and attempted to murder Yvette Williams, a store employee whom Petitioner shot in the cheek. The evidence established that Petitioner’s - co-defendant, Keith Hammond, drove the getaway car after the murder and robbery.

The California Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and death sentence on February 24, 1992. People v. Mitcham, 1 Cal.4th 1027, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 230, 824 P.2d 1277 (1992). The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 13,1992.

Petitioner filed his first state habeas petition on January 7, 1992. The California Supreme Court denied this petition on the merits. In re Mitcham, Cal. S.Ct. No. S024600. Petitioner filed his second state habeas petition on October 13, 1992. The California Supreme Court denied this petition on the merits and on procedural grounds on September 13, 1993. In re Mitcham, Cal. S.Ct. No. S029219. Petitioner filed his third state habeas petition containing unexhausted claims on February 9, 1998. The California Supreme Court denied this petition on the merits and on procedural grounds on December 21, 1999. In re Mitcham, Cal. S.Ct. No. S067887.

On February 11, 1998, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in federal court. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Petitioner later amended his petition to delete unexhaust-ed claims. An amended petition containing newly exhausted claims was filed on February 4, 2000. Respondent filed an answer on July 23, 2001.

The parties litigated procedural default issues in 2001. On October 28, 2002, Judge Walker issued an order finding certain claims and subclaims partially defaulted. The parties subsequently litigated several motions for summary judgment. In an order filed on June 18, 2010, Judge Walker granted summary judgment on numerous guilt phase claims in favor of Re-spondént, and requested supplemental briefing in relation to claim D, Petitioner’s claim that the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude African American jurors violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights. (ECF Doe. No. 348.)

On August 25, 2010, Judge Walker granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent on claim D, with the exception of Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel subclaim. (ECF Doc. No. 351.) Judge Walker found that “[bjecause petitioner failed to object to the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges at trial, he has failed to preserve his Batson claim for review on federal habeas.” Id. at 4. Although Judge Walker precluded Petitioner from pursuing a Batson claim, Judge Walker allowed Petitioner to proceed with his claim D subclaim that trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s improper peremptory challenges constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Id.

In a subsequent order, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White, to whom this case was transferred on September 29, 2011, ruled that Batson does not apply to Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel subclaim. (ECF Doc. No. 379 at 3.) Because Petitioner was tried in 1984, and Batson was not decided until 1986, Judge White concluded that “[evaluating trial counsel’s performance based on caselaw that had not yet been decided at the time of trial would run counter to Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ]’s directive.” Id. at 2. Although Judge White precluded Petitioner from pursuing an ineffective assistance of counsel subclaim based on Petitioner’s trial counsel’s failure to raise a Batson objection, Judge White allowed Petitioner to proceed with Petitioner’s sub-claim that trial counsel’s failure to raise an analogous objection under Wheeler constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The case was transferred to the undersigned on January 4, 2012. (ECF Doc. No. 386.)

Petitioner thereafter conducted an extensive investigation in relation to the ineffective assistance subclaim based on Wheeler, including a comprehensive survey of the racial composition of Petitioner’s entire qualified venire. That investigation consisted of personal interviews of the 117 qualified jurors or their next of kin, as well as obtaining Department of Motor Vehicle photographs and, in some instances, death certificates. The parties’ briefs are now ripe for decision. (ECF Doc. Nos. 397, 403, and 407.)

PARTIES’ ALLEGATIONS

Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel’s failure to object to the use of peremptory challenges by prosecutor Albert Meloling (now deceased) to exclude eight of eight African Americans called to the jury box constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner alleges that had trial counsel, Lincoln Mintz (now deceased), and second counsel, Harry Traback, filed a motion under Wheeler objecting to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges, the motion would have been granted, resulting in a new jury venire panel at trial, or a new trial on appeal. Respondent refutes Petitioner’s allegations.

JURY SELECTION PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner’s counsel, Mintz, was appointed lead trial counsel for Petitioner by the Alameda County Superior Court in April 1983. In December 1983, shortly before the beginning of jury selection, Traback, a former prosecutor, was appointed as second counsel. Traback worked on certain assigned tasks, but he did not make any strategic decisions in Petitioner’s case. (ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 6, Deck of Harry Traback at 64.) Petitioner’s jointly tried co-defendant, Keith Hammond, was represented by Alameda County deputy public defenders Harvey Homel and Diane Bellas. All four defense attorneys agreed to work together in selecting the jury. Mintz, however, was given the authority to exercise all peremptory challenges. (ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 10, Suppl. Decl. of Diane Bellas at 103.) Meloling was the Alameda County deputy district attorney who prosecuted Petitioner and his co-defendant.

During voir dire, 265 prospective jurors were questioned. Clerk’s Transcript (“CT”) 211-55. Thirty-six of the 265 prospective jurors were African American. (ECF Doc. No. 897, Ex. 1, Decl. of Investigator Melody Ermachild at 4.) Of the 265 venirepersons, ninety-nine were excluded for cause and fifty-five were excluded by stipulation of counsel. CT 211-55. After exclusions for cause and by stipulation, 117 qualified prospective jurors — all of whom were death qualified — remained. Of these 117, seventeen were African American. (ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 1, Decl. of Investigator Melody Ermachild at 4.)

To select the jury, twelve qualified prospective jurors were randomly selected and called to the jury box. The prosecution and defense then alternately used their peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors. During this process, thirty-one prospective jurors were called to the jury box. Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”) 3968-74. The prosecutor challenged eleven prospective jurors, and defense counsel challenged eight. Thirteen additional prospective jurors were called during the selection of four alternate jurors. Of these, the prosecutor challenged four prospective alternates, while the defense challenged five. RT 3975-78.

The prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike every African American called to the jury box. The prosecutor struck each of the five African Americans called during the selection of Petitioner’s jury, and each of the three African Americans called as prospective alternates. In sum, of the fifteen prospective jurors struck by the prosecutor, eight were African American: Clarence Spiller, Aunita Jones, Abdulel Luqman, Willetta Combs, Patricia Fuller, Sharon Penn, Beverly Frazier, and Charles Threets. As a result, Petitioner had no members of his race among the twelve jurors and four alternate jurors. (ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 1, Decl. of Investigator Melody Ermachild at 9.) The empaneled jury consisted of eleven Caucasian jurors and one Hispanic-sur-named juror. Id.

During voir dire, the prosecutor and the four defense attorneys entered an agreement to shorten proceedings by providing each other the names of potential jurors that each side intended to challenge, and to then shorten or forgo questioning of these jurors. (ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 8, Suppl. Decl. of Harvey Homel at 84-85.) The prosecutor’s list of prospective jurors whom he intended to strike included eighteen prospective jurors, eight of whom were African American. (ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 6, Decl. of Harry Traback at 67.) The defense list consisted of five prospective jurors — four Caucasians and one Hispanic-surnamed juror. The prosecutor struck four of the eight African American prospective jurors on his list, as well as four other African Americans who were not on the prosecutor’s list. Jury selection was completed before the four remaining African American prospective jurors on the prosecutor’s strike list, Frank Beavers, Hubert Martin, Anthony Pigrum, and Prettiest Wylie, were called to the jury box. The prosecutor thus struck every African American called to the jury box (eight of eight), and demonstrated to defense counsel an intent to strike twelve African American jurors (i.e., the eight African American jurors who were on the prosecutor’s strike list, plus the four who were not on the list, but were called to the jury box and struck by the prosecutor).

The. record makes clear that the prosecutor was keeping track of the race of the African American prospective jurors: he wrote “B” next to their names on the qualified jury list and gave them a “failing grade.” (ECF Doc. No. 397-2, Ex. 13, Alameda County Jury List.) He did not keep track of the race of any other jurors. The prosecutor’s voir dire notes reveal his acceptable juror ratings (a “K” by itself, circled, or “K?”) and unacceptable ratings (an “0” by itself, or “0?”). (ECF Doc. No. 397-2, Ex. 15, Deposition of Albert Melding in Hovey v. Calderon, No. 89-01430-MHP, at 26.) The prosecutor rated all seventeen of the qualified African American jurors with an unacceptable “0” next to their names, with the exception of prospective juror Theodore Carter, who was never called to the jury box. Thus, in addition to the eight African Americans on the prosecutor’s strike list and the four additional African American jurors who were not on the prosecutor’s strike list but were struck by the prosecutor, there were four more African American prospective jurors whom the prosecutor identified with a “B” and deemed unacceptable: Frances Crockett, Cheryl Favroth, Nathaniel Fripp, and Keith Smith. In total, then, the record shows the prosecutor intended to strike sixteen of the seventeen qualified African American jurors.

Additionally, the prosecutor’s handwritten notes during voir dire of African American prospective juror Willetta Combs state that she is “Black” and that: “She has some feelings about death penalty — but could impose it in a given case. I think she would be alright but she does have some reservations about death— Keep if necessary to avoid Wheeler — She would try to be fair.” (ECF Doc. No. 397-2, Ex. 14 at 19.)

The prosecutor also struck Caucasian prospective jurors who evidenced a connection to African Americans. The prosecutor challenged Alan Dundes, a Caucasian professor of folklore and anthropology at U.C. Berkeley, who stated that he had an interest in African American culture and had written a book on African American folklore. RT 1727, 1733. The prosecutor also struck Diane Weston, a Caucasian female, after questioning about her husband’s employment suggested that he might be African American. (ECF Doc. No. 397-2, Ex. 17, Decl. of Diane Weston.) Indeed, the prosecutor’s voir dire notes stated about Weston: “Think her husband is black.” (ECF Doc. No. 397-2, Ex. 14 at 20.)

The two defense teams also worked together to numerically rate the jurors who were not on the prosecutor’s strike list. The prospective jurors were rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best for the defense. (ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 6 at 65-66.) As described by co-defendant Hammond’s counsel, Diane Bellas:

Mr. Homel and I worked together with Mr. Mintz and Mr. Traback to rate and select the jury. We used a numerical ratings system and collectively rated the jurors. My recall is that the rating was 1 to 5, with 5 being the best rating for the defense. A score of 0 or 1 would indicate a juror most predisposed to conviction and/or the penalty of death and a score of 3 and above would signify an acceptable or good juror for the defense. I believe that in addition to the numerical score, a plus (“ + ”) signified that the juror had strong convictions, attitudes or leadership potential and a minus signified that the juror had weaker convictions, attitudes or leadership potential.

(ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 10, Suppl. Decl. of Diane Bellas at 103.)

The defense highly rated four African Americans who were not on the prosecutor’s strike list: Clarence Spiller (3 /£ 4- -*), Aunita Jones (5 + -*), Abdulel Luqman (4*), and Willetta Combs (4 + ). Id. at 105. These four individuals highly rated by the defense were eventually called to the jury box. The prosecutor struck all of them. Petitioner’s trial counsel did not object to these peremptory challenges even though he had rated them as desirable jurprs. Furthermore, the Court notes that although voir dire proceedings lasted more than three months, the parties’ exercise of peremptory challenges lasted less than half an hour. RT 3970-78.

The prosecutor did not submit a declaration setting forth his justifications for striking African American jurors. Similarly, Petitioner’s lead trial counsel did not submit a declaration explaining his reasons for not raising a Wheeler objection.

PETITIONER’S LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL’S DISBARMENT

The disciplinary history of Petitioner’s trial counsel began in 1995 with a private reproval for abandoning a client and failing to participate in the State Bar’s disciplinary investigation. (ECF Doc. No. 397-2, Ex. 12 at 9.) In 1997, the State Bar suspended him for ninety days, stayed the suspension, and placed him on two years’ probation for failing to comply with the conditions of his private reproval. Id. at 9-10. In 1999, the State Bar suspended him for two years, stayed the suspension, and placed him on three years’ probation with a nine-month actual suspension for failing to communicate with two clients, to comply with his probationary terms, and to cooperate with eight State Bar disciplinary investigations. Id. He was ultimately disbarred in September 2000 as a result of his misconduct, including professional wrongdoing dating back to 1968. Id. at 9.

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Default

As a threshold matter, Respondent asserts that Petitioner’s subclaim is procedurally defaulted because the California Supreme Court rejected it on the procedural ground that it could have been, but was not, raised on direct appeal, a procedural bar established in In re Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756, 264 P.2d 513 (1953). See Lodged Ex. FF. The Dixon bar, according to Respondent, forecloses fedpral review of Petitioner’s subclaim. The Court notes, however, that in a motion seeking dismissal of defaulted claims filed in 2001, Respondent acknowledged that a Dixon default does not bar federal habeas review of Petitioner’s claims. (ECF Doc. No. 227 at 5.)

Respondent’s 2001 position is the correct one. Under the doctrine of procedural default, federal courts will not review “a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). “For a state procedural rule to be ‘independent,’ the state law basis for the decision must not be interwoven with federal law.” La Crosse v. Kernan, 244 F.3d 702, 704 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1040-41, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983)). A state law ground is interwoven with federal law in those cases where application of the state procedural rule requires the state court to resolve a question of federal law. Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir.2000) (citing Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 75, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985)). Independence is measured at the time when the default is announced by the state court. See Vaughn v. Adams, 116 Fed.Appx. 827, 828 (9th Cir.2004) (looking to the date the “habeas petition was denied by the California Supreme Court” in determining whether a Dixon default was “an independent procedural bar”); Jones v. Ayers, No. CIVS972167MCECMK, 2008 WL 906302, at *27 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 31, 2008) (explaining that “the independence of the Dixon default is determined as of 2003, when it was imposed” by the state court in that case).

For a state procedural rule to be “adequate,” it must be clear, well-established, and consistently applied. Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Bean), 96 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir.1996). The issue of whether a state procedural rule is adequate to foreclose federal review is itself a federal question. Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 375, 122 S.Ct. 877, 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002) (quoting Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 422, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965)). The adequacy of a state procedural rule must be assessed as of the time when the petitioner committed the default. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that “a state rule must be clear, consistently applied, and well-established at the time of petitioner’s purported default” for purposes of “the adequacy prong”); see also Fields v. Calderon, 125 F.3d 757, 760-61 (9th Cir.1997) (“With respect to the Dixon rule, we have held that a relevant point of reference for assessing [adequacy] is the time at which the petitioner had an opportunity to raise the claims on direct appeal.” (internal'quotation marks omitted)).

In 1993, the date when the state court found Petitioner’s subclaim procedurally barred, the California Supreme Court’s application of Dixon was not independent of federal law. See Park, 202 F.3d at 1152— 53. In Park, the Ninth Circuit made clear that “prior to 1998,” when In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153, 959 P.2d 311 (1998), was decided, “the California Supreme Court necessarily made an antecedent ruling on federal law before applying the Dixon bar to any federal constitutional claims raised” on state habeas. Park, 202 F.3d at 1152-53. In other words, “before Robbins, the Dixon rule was interwoven with, and not independent from, federal law.” Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 582 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). The California Supreme Court’s application of Dixon in the instant case, which occurred five years before Robbins, was therefore not independent of federal law.

Respondent’s citations to the contrary are inapposite because they all concerned post-Robbins state court applications of the Dixon rule. See Flores v. Roe, No. F 02 5296 WMW HC, 2005 WL 1406086, at *11 (E.D.Cal. June 14, 2005) (Dixon default “occurred in 1999, making it a post-Robbins default”), aff'd, 228 Fed.Appx. 690, 691 (9th Cir.2007); see also Roevekamp v. Choates, No. CV 12-3845-CAS CW, 2013 WL 2456615, at *1-2 (C.D.Cal. June 5, 2013) (California Supreme Court’s application of Dixon, which occurred on March 28, 2012, was “post-Robbins ”); Roberts v. Uribe, No. 11CV2665-WQH BLM, 2013 WL 950703, at *2-4 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 6, 2013) (California Supreme Court’s application of Dixon, which occurred on February 1, 2012, was post-Robbins); Lee v. Mitchell, No. CV 01-10751-PA PLA, 2012 WL 2194471, at *19-20 (C.D.Cal. May 1, 2012) (Dixon default was “post-RoS-bins”); Cantrell v. Evans, No. 2:07-CV-1440-MMM, 2010 WL 1170063, at *1, *13-14 (E.D.Cal. Mar. 24, 2010) (state court application of Dixon occurred no earlier than September 25, 2006, when the Shasta County Superior Court “invoked the procedural bar”).

Additionally, at the time of Petitioner’s direct appeal in 1988, the Dixon rule was not adequate. This is so because, as the Ninth Circuit has held, Dixon defaults occurring before the California Supreme Court’s 1993 decisions in In re Harris, 5 Cal.4th 813, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 373, 855 P.2d 391 (1993), and In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509, 855 P.2d 729 (1993), are “not an adequate state ground to bar federal habeas review.” Fields, 125 F.3d at 763; see also La Crosse, 244 F.3d at 705 (“We have previously held that, at least prior to 1993, neither California’s Dixon rule nor its untimeliness rule was an adequate and independent state law ground that could bar federal review.”). Respondent fails to cite any controlling authority to the contrary. What authority Respondent does cite only supports the Court’s conclusion. See, e.g., Roevekamp, 2013 WL 2456615, at *3 (explaining that the Ninth Circuit has found “the [Dixon ] rule to be inadequate at a time prior to the California Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in In re Harris ”).

For the aforementioned reasons, Petitioner’s ineffective assistance’ of counsel subclaim is not procedurally defaulted.

B. Standard of Review

Habeas petitions filed after April 24, 1996, such as Petitioner’s, are governed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See Mann v. Ryan, 774 F.3d 1203, 1209 (9th Cir.2014). However, because the state court denied relief on procedural grounds and did not reach the merits of Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel subclaim, this Court’s review of that subclaim is de novo, rather than subject to AEDPA’s deferential standard that applies to “any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see James v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir.2013) (“Where a state court does not reach the merits of a federal claim, but instead relies on a procedural bar later held inadequate to foreclose federal habeas review, we review de novo.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 2697, 189 L.Ed.2d 740 (2014); Scott v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir.2013) (per curiam) (applying “de novo ” review, rather than AEDPA deference under § 2254(d), “because, although the claims were presented to the state postconviction court, that court dismissed the claims on purely procedural grounds”); see also Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir.2005) (applying de novo standard of review to a First Amendment habeas claim that was denied solely on procedural grounds by state court); Lewis v. Mayle, 391 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir.2004) (de novo review, rather than AEDPA’s deferential standard, applies to a claim that was not adjudicated on the merits in state court); Nulph v. Cook, 333 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir.2003) (AEDPA applies to petition but not to petitioner’s due process claim because state court did not reach its merits).

AEDPA nonetheless governs any factual determinations made by the state court, which are “presumed to be correct” and can only be rebutted “by clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see Khalifa v. Cash, 594 Fed.Appx. 339, 341 (9th Cir.2014) (“[E]ven reviewing [petitioner’s] constitutional claim de novo, AEDPA still mandates that factual determinations by the state court are presumed correct and can be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Lewis, 391 F.3d at 996 (reviewing “de novo whether [petitioner] waived his right to conflict free counsel, while deferring to any factual findings made by the state court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)”).

C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is cognizable as a denial of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which guarantees not only assistance, but effective assistance, of counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. Id.

In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must first show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A petitioner must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The relevant inquiry is not what defense counsel could have done, but rather whether the choices made by defense counsel were reasonable. Babbitt v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir.1998). Counsel’s performance must be evaluated “ ‘as of the time of counsel’s conduct.’ ” Lowry v. Lewis, 21 F.3d 344, 346 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052).

Second, a petitioner must show that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id.

1. Wheeler Standard

Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on his trial counsel’s failure to object to a Wheeler violation. In Wheeler, the California Supreme Court held that “the use of peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors on the sole ground of group bias violates the right to trial by a jury drawn from a representativé cross-section of the community under article I, section 16, of the California Constitution.” 22 Cal.3d at 276-77, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. The court’s decision was also rooted in the impartial jury guarantee of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Id. at 272, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.

The first step in a Wheeler objection is to show a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. A prima facie case has three elements:

First ... [the party] should make as complete a record of the circumstances as is feasible. Second, he must establish that the persons excluded are members of a cognizable group within the meaning of the cross-section rule. Third, from all the circumstances of the case he must show a strong likelihood that such persons are being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias.

Id. at 280, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (emphasis added).

If a court finds that a prima facie case has been made, the court proceeds to the second step. At step two, the burden shifts to the prosecution to show that the peremptory challenges in question were not predicated on group bias alone. The prosecutor may support his showing “by reference to the totality of the circumstances: for example, it will be relevant if he can demonstrate that in the course of this same voir dire he also challenged similarly situated members of the majority group on identical or comparable grounds.” Id. at 282, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. “If the court finds that the burden of justification is not sustained as to any of the questioned peremptory challenges, the presumption of their validity is rebutted.” Id. (emphasis added).

The remedy for a successful Wheeler motion is that “a different venire shall be drawn and the jury selection process may begin anew.” Id. If a Wheeler violation is found on appeal, the error is deemed prejudicial per se: “The right to a fair trial and impartial jury is one of the most sacred and important guaranties of the Constitution. Where it has been infringed, no inquiry as to the sufficiency of the evidence to show guilt is indulged and a conviction by a jury so selected must be set aside.” Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 283, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (citing People v. Riggins, 159 Cal. 113, 120, 112 P. 862 (1910)).

Importantly, since the Court is evaluating the likelihood of success of Petitioner’s hypothetical Wheeler objection in the context of an ineffective assistance claim, Petitioner has the burden of showing under Strickland (1) that counsel’s failure to raise such an objection constituted deficient performance, and (2) a reasonable probability that such an objection would have been successful. See Carrera, 699 F.3d at 1108 (“Because we are evaluating the likelihood of success of Carrera’s hypothetical Wheeler objection in the context of an ineffective assistance claim, he has the burden to show under Strickland a reasonable probability he would have prevailed on a Wheeler claim.”). For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that Petitioner has carried his burden.

2. Deficient Performance

Petitioner’s trial counsel’s performance must be evaluated based on the law and prevailing legal standards as they existed at the time of Petitioner’s trial in 1984. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The relevant question is whether in California in 1984, Petitioner’s trial counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” when he failed to make a Wheeler motion to discharge the venire because of the prosecutor’s group-based peremptory challenges. Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Petitioner must overcome the strong presumption that under the circumstances, the challenged action “might be considered sound trial strategy.” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. That said, courts have found counsel’s failure to object to racial discrimination during jury selection to be deficient performance under Strickland. See, e.g., Doe v. Ayers, 782 F.3d 425, 432 (9th Cir.2015) (trial counsel’s failure to raise Wheeler objection to prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges “constituted deficient performance” where two of four African Americans were struck and one African American was empaneled); Eagle v. Linahan, 279 F.3d 926, 938-43 (11th Cir.2001) (petitioner’s appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in not raising Batson claim on appeal); Hollis v. Davis, 941 F.2d 1471, 1476-79 (11th Cir.1991) (petitioner’s counsel’s failure to object to systemic exclusion of African Americans from jury service constituted ineffective assistance establishing cause to overcome procedural default); see also Drain v. Woods, 595 Fed.Appx. 558, 582 (6th Cir.2014) (“[D]e-fense counsel’s failure to object to the manner in which the trial court dealt with the Batson violation did constitute deficient counsel.”).

At the time of Petitioner’s trial, the prevailing standard of care for attorneys appointed to represent criminal defendants at trial included the duty to engage in the jury selection process with the goal of obtaining a fair and impartial jury for their client. In California, a criminal defendant’s right to trial by a representative cross-section of the community had been recognized since at least the 1950s. See People v. White, 43 Cal.2d 740, 754, 278 P.2d 9 (1954) (“The American system requires an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the entire community and recognition must be given to the fact that eligible jurors are to be found in every stratum of society.”).

More specifically, in 1978, six years before Petitioner’s trial, the California Supreme Court had held that racial discrimination was prohibited in jury selection. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 271-72, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. Decisions of the California Supreme Court from 1978 to 1984 reversing lower court judgments on Wheeler grounds “make clear that defense attorneys were making ‘Wheeler motions’ under similar circumstances at that time.” Williams v. Woodford, 396 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir.2005) (Rawlinson, J., joined by Pregerson, Reinhardt, Thomas, Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, Fisher, Paez, & Berzon, JJ., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Those decisions included, for example, People v. Hall, 35 Cal.3d 161, 170-71, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854 (1983) (reversing judgment on Wheeler grounds), People v. Allen, 23 Cal.3d 286, 295, 152 Cal.Rptr. 454, 590 P.2d 30 (1979) (same), and People v. Johnson, 22 Cal.3d 296, 300, 148 Cal.Rptr. 915, 583 P.2d 774 (1978) (same). Indeed, James Thomson, Petitioner’s expert regarding the standard of practice applicable to criminal defense attorneys, opines:

During the nearly eight years from the date of the Wheeler decision on September 25, 1978, to the date of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, on April 30, 1986, the regular practice of defense counsel in California was to object to improper prosecutorial jury challenges under Wheeler. By 1984, the time of [Petitioner’s] trial, criminal defense counsel had been trained to make Wheeler motions' for well over five years.

In sum, the standard of care applicable to counsel in capital cases during 1983-84, the period of trial counsel’s representation of [Petitioner], required counsel to be alert to a prosecutor’s misuse of peremptory ' challenges, and to protect a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury from a representative cross-section of the community by objecting and making a sufficient record when counsel suspects that the prosecutor is excluding prospective jurors on the impermissible basis of race.

(EOF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 5, Decl. of James Thomson at 36.)

In failing to object to the prosecution’s exercise of peremptory challenges, defense counsel ignored ample evidence of a prima facie case of racial discrimination under. Wheeler. As the California Supreme Court explained, evidence relevant to the establishment of a Wheeler violation includes a showing that: (1) the prosecutor has struck most or all of the members of an identified group from the venire, or has used a disproportionate amount of his peremptory challenges against that group; (2) the prospective jurors in question have only their group identification- in common, and in all other respects are as heterogeneous as the community as a whole (e.g., “in a case of alleged exclusion on the ground of race it may be significant if the persons challenged, although black, include both men and women and are of a variety of ages, occupations, and social or economic conditions”); (3) the prosecutor fails to engage the prospective jurors in more than desultory voir dire, or fails to ask them any questions at all; and (4) the defendant is a member of the excluded group, and if in addition, the alleged victim is a member of the group to which the majority of the remaining jurors belong, these facts may also be called to the court’s attention. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 280-81, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.

The jury selection in Petitioner’s case bore all of these indicia. Inexplicably, defense counsel failed to raise a Wheeler objection despite being faced with the following facts:

• The prosecutor struck every single African American called to the jury box (Combs, Jones, Luqman, Spiller, Penn, Fuller, Threets, and Frazier), and he used a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges against them. Specifically, he struck 100 percent of the African American prospective jurors (eight of eight) and 53 percent of his peremptory challenges (eight of fifteen) were directed against African Americans. This was disproportionately higher than the percentage of African Americans within the qualified venire (14.5 percent).

• In sharing his strike list, the prosecutor gave the defense advance notice of the fact that he intended to exclude eight African American venirepersons (Penn, Fuller, Threets, Frazier, Beavers, Martin, Pigrum, and Wylie) if they were called to the jury box. The prosecutor ultimately struck four African Americans who were not on the prosecutor’s strike list (Combs, Jones, Luqman, and Spiller), demonstrating to defense counsel an intent to strike twelve African American prospective jurors. The latter four jurors were all highly rated by the defense.

• The prospective African American jurors had only their group identification in common, and in all other respects, were as heterogeneous as the community as a whole. The eight African American jurors excluded by the prosecutor differed in age, gender, employment, and social status. Of the eight, three were men, five were women, and their occupations and ages all varied: Willetta Combs (female in late 40s, postal service employee) RT 279-99; Beverly Frazier (female in early 40s, AT & T employee) RT 3794-809; Patricia Fuller (female in late 20s, social worker) RT 200820; Aunita Jones (female in late 30s, secretary at Equitable Life) RT 719-37; Abdulel Luqman (male, age unknown, manufacturing representative for Electronic Research Co., B.A. in engineering) RT 850-82; Sharon Penn (female in early 30s, drug counselor) RT 1530-37; Clarence Spiller (male in late 50s, truck driver) RT 1239-61; and Charles Threets (male in early 40s, metal polisher) RT 3534-43.

• Petitioner and his co-defendant were African American, the same race as the excluded jurors, and both victims were Caucasian, the same race as at least 11 of the 12 jurors who ultimately served on the jury. The final member of the jury was Hispanic-sur-named. No member of Petitioner’s jury was African American.

• The prosecutor struck Caucasian prospective jurors such as Alan Dundes (college professor who had written a book on African American folklore) and Diane Weston (questioning suggested her husband may have been African American) who evidenced potential sympathy for African Americans.

• As will be detailed further in Section 3, infra, the voir dire of three African American jurors who were struck, Combs, Luqman, and Threets, did not reveal evidence of “specific bias.” Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 280, 148 Cal. Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. Absent their race, these jurors should have been desirable to the prosecution. RT 296 (Combs’s daughter had a pending job application with sheriffs department); RT 875 (Luqman’s brother was a police officer, his sister was a correctional officer, and another brother was a youth counselor); RT 3540 (Threets' had two brothers who were deputy sheriffs in San Francisco).

• As will be detailed further in Section 3, infra, the prosecutor did not strike eight Caucasian jurors and one Hispanic-surnamed juror who were called to the jury box and who preferred life without parole or equivocated on the death penalty: four served on Petitioner’s jury (Klenk, Corrales, Garvin, and Charron); two served as alternates on Petitioner’s jury (Goodwill and Moore); and two were struck by the defense (Bailey and Attwood).

• As will be detailed further in Section 3, infra, the prosecutor did not engage in meaningful voir dire of' the African American prospective jurors who appeared on his strike list. See, e.g., voir dire of jurors Frazier, RT 3794-809; Fuller, RT 2008-20; Penn, RT 1530-37; Threets, RT 3542-43. As a result, the prosecutor failed to engage a number of the African American prospective jurors in more than desultory voir dire.

In light of the foregoing, the Court is convinced that defense counsel ignored significant evidence establishing a prima facie Wheeler violation. Indeed, the facts of Petitioner’s case are quite similar to those in Wheeler. There, the prosecution used seven peremptory challenges to excuse all African American prospective jurors called to the jury box in a case where two African American defendants were accused of murdering a Caucasian grocery store owner in the course of a robbery. The case was tried before an all-Caucasian jury. The California Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges violated the defendants’ right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community as guaranteed by the California Constitution. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 283, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. In the instant case, the prosecutor used eight peremptory challenges to excuse all African American prospective jurors called to the jury box in a case where two African American defendants were accused of murdering a Caucasian jewelry store owner and shooting a Caucasian store employee in the cheek in the course of a robbery. Petitioner was tried before a jury of eleven Caucasian jurors and one Hispanic-surnamed juror. (ÉCF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 1, Decl. of Investigator Melody Ermachild at 9.) Petitioner’s jury contained no members of his race.

Furthermore, by the time of Petitioner’s trial, state courts in California had found prima facie cases of racially discriminatory exercises of peremptory challenges in other criminal prosecutions with similar or less troubling numbers than those at Petitioner’s trial. See, e.g., Hall, 35 Cal.3d at 168, 170-71, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854 (prima facie case conceded where prosecution used five of eight peremptory challenges to remove all African American prospective jurors); Allen, 23 Cal.3d at 291, 294-95, 152 Cal.Rptr. 454, 590 P.2d 30 (prima facie showing found where prosecution struck all fourteen African American prospective jurors); Johnson, 22 Cal.3d at 298-300, 148 Cal.Rptr. 915, 583 P.2d 774 (judgment reversed where prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike one of two African Americans jurors, and declared intent to challenge second African American juror if called to the jury box); People v. Fuller, 136 Cal.App.3d 403, 414-24, 186 Cal.Rptr. 283 (1982) (prima facie showing found under Wheeler where prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove all three African American prospective jurors from the panel).

Considering the strong prima facie evidence here that African American jurors were being struck because of their race, the Court agrees with Petitioner’s expert that Petitioner’s case presented a situation where a Wheeler motion was imperative:

Essentially, this was a classic case for such a motion: when the prosecutor gives notice to the defense that he intends to exclude eight African American venirepersons in a capital case with two African American defendants and two Caucasian victims, then strikes all eight African American prospective jurors, and gives notice to the defense that he intends to exclude four more, if called, and defense counsel have rated highly at least four African Americans and did not intend to challenge (and did not challenge) any African American jurors; a reasonably competent defense attorney should and would have objected under Wheeler.

(ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex; 5, Decl. of James Thomson at 55.)

Petitioner argues further that his trial counsel’s failure to develop a record of the race of prospective jurors contributed to trial counsel’s deficient performance. Petitioner asserts that Wheeler imposed such a duty upon defense counsel. (ECF Doc. No. 397 at 50 (citing Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 263, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748).) The California Supreme Court in Wheeler stated that when circumstances suggest that a prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges is denying a defendant’s right to trial by an impartial jury, “it is incumbent upon counsel ... to make a record sufficient to preserve the point for review.” 22 Cal.3d at 263, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. Under the circumstances of Petitioner’s voir dire proceedings, a reasonable attorney would also have developed a record of the race of prospective jurors in order to raise a Wheeler objection. The relative amount of time spent exercising peremptory challenges underscores trial counsel’s failure to develop the record: all peremptory challenges were made in less than thirty minutes even though voir dire proceedings had lasted more than three months.

Critically, there appears to have been no tactical reason for failing to raise a Wheeler challenge. In Williams v. Woodford, the African American petitioner was convicted of murder in California state court and sentenced to death by an all-Caucasian jury in 1981. 396 F.3d at 1060 (Rawlinson, J., joined by Pregerson, Reinhardt, Thomas, Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, Fisher, Paez, & Berzon, JJ., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Because the panel in Williams denied a certificate of appealability on the petitioner’s Batson claim, the panel “failed to address the question of whether trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s discriminatory peremptory challenges -gives rise to • an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” 396 F.3d at 1060. The only judges to do so in writing were the nine who signed the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. Going forward, all citations to Williams refer to this nine-judge dissental.

The prosecutor in Williams used two of his nineteen peremptory challenges to strike the only two African Americans called to the jury box. Id. at 1061. The prosecutor also struck the only African American who had been drawn as an alternate. Id. In Williams, as here, “the prosecutor obtained a jury, and an alternate juror pool, that contained not a single African-American.” Id. On these facts, nine judges of the Ninth Circuit concluded that “[a]ny reasonable attorney under the circumstances of this case would have objected to the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges to rid the jury of African-Americans.” Id. at 1071. “We cannot,” the nine judges explained, “characterize the failure of Williams’ counsel to object to the prosecutor’s discriminatory strikes as a permissible ‘strategic choice’ or ‘tactical decision.’” Id.-, see also Hollis, 941 F.2d at 1478 (finding it “impossible to conclude from [defense counsel’s] statements that he had made a reasoned, professional judgment that not raising the issue [of systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury pool] was in [petitioner’s] interest”).

In the instant case, the prosecutor struck every African American called to the jury box and more than twice the number that were struck in Williams. Petitioner’s lead trial counsel did not submit a declaration explaining his reasons for not raising a Wheeler objection. Petitioner’s other trial counsel, Traback, declared that he has no memory of a strategic or tactical reason for lead trial counsel Mintz to refrain from making a- Wheeler motion. (ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 6 at 68.) In addition, at least four of the African American prospective jurors struck by the prosecution, were highly rated by the defense: Clarence Spiller (3]é +-), Aunita Jones (5 + -), Abdulel Luqman (4), and Willetta Combs (4 + -). Bellas, attorney for Petitioner’s co-defendant Hammond, declared that given the high numerical scores the defense gave these four jurors, she was “not aware of any factual, tactical or strategic reason for Mr. Mintz’s failure to object,” and, in fact, “there was no tactical reason for Mr. Mintz not to object.” (ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 10, Suppl. Decl. of Diane Bellas at 105-06.) These African American prospective jurors were not on the prosecutor’s strike list, but were called to the jury box and struck by the prosecutor. Despite ample opportunity, Petitioner’s trial counsel did not object to these strikes or any others. Whereas the defense counsel in Williams “could have made the motion after the first strike, the second strike, the third strike, or at the conclusion of jury selection,” defense counsel here could have done so after the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth strike, as well as at the end of jury selection. Williams, 396 F.3d at 1072. Moreover, as indicated above and detailed further in Section 3, infra, the instant case has far greater evidence establishing a prima facie case than was presented in Williams. “Any way you slice it,” this Court finds, there was no tactical or strategic reason for Petitioner’s counsel to remain silent, and “counsel’s failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id.

Finally, raising a Wheeler challenge did not appear to have a downside. (See ECF Doc. No. 397-1, Ex. 5, Decl. of James Thomson at 53-54 (listing reasons why a reasonable lawyer would have lodged a Wheeler objection).) Had a Wheeler motion been made, defense counsel would have been able to place the prosecutor and trial court on notice of the challenged conduct, and would have preserved a record for appeal. Had a Wheeler motion been granted, a new venire panel would have been empaneled, with a greater chance of obtaining a representative jury. Id. As the Sixth Circuit recently explained in the analogous Batson context: “The fact that a Batson error is structural and requires an adequate remedy lends itself to a conclusion that a failure to object in this case constituted deficient counsel.” Drain, 595 Fed.Appx. at 583.

In light of the above evidence, the Court concludes that trial counsel’s failure to make a Wheeler motion fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing professional norms in existence at the time of Petitioner’s trial from December 1983 through May 1984. Petitioner has overcome the “strong presumption” that his trial counsel’s failure to object was “sound trial strategy.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Thus, Petitioner has established that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient. See Doe, 782 F.3d at 432 (trial counsel’s failure to raise Wheeler objection “constituted deficient performance” where prosecutor struck two of four African Americans and one African American was empaneled).

3. Prejudice

In order to prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Petitioner need not prove conclusively that the trial court would have sustained a Wheeler objection. Rather, Petitioner must demonstrate only a “reasonable probability” that he would have prevailed on a Wheeler challenge had it been raised by his trial counsel. Carrera, 699 F.3d at 1108. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner carries this burden.

a. Prima Facie Wheeler Case

To evaluate whether a hypothetical Wheeler objection would have had a reasonable probability of success, the Court must assess the strength of that objection. As outlined in Section 1, supra, the first step in establishing a Wheeler violation is to show a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. To establish a prima facie case, a party (1) should make as complete a record of the circumstances as is feasible; (2) must establish that the excluded persons are members of a cognizable group within the meaning of the cross-section rule; and (3) from all of the circumstances of the case, • must show a strong likelihood that such persons are being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 280, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. Specific bias is “a bias relating to the particular case on trial or the parties or witnesses hereto.” Id. at 276, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.

For the reasons discussed in Section 2, supra, the evidence in Petitioner’s case was sufficient to establish a prima facie Wheeler violation had a Wheeler objection been raised. First, considering that the prosecutor struck every African American called to the jury box, a reasonable attorney would have developed a record of the race of prospective jurors. Second, the excluded African American prospective jurors were members of a cognizable group within the meaning of the cross-section rule. See Fuller, 136 Cal.App.3d at 415 n. 8, 186 Cal.Rptr. 283 (“Blacks ... have long been held to be a cognizable group.”). Third, based on all of the circumstances of his case, Petitioner would have been able to show a strong likelihood that prospective African American jurors were being challenged because of their group association rather than because of any specific bias.

As detailed above: (1) the prosecutor struck 100 percent (eight of eight) African American jurors from the venire and used a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges (eight of fifteen) against them; (2) the prosecutor’s strike list demonstrated to defense counsel an intent to strike four additional African American jurors; (3) four of the struck jurors were highly rated by the defense; (4) the African American jurors were of diverse ages, genders, employment, and social status and had only their group identification in common; (5) the prosecutor failed to engage several of the African American jurors in more than desultory voir dire; (6) Petitioner and his co-defendant were African American, the same race as the excluded jurors, and both victims were Caucasian; (7) the prosecutor struck Caucasian prospective jurors who evidenced potential sympathy for African Americans; (8) the voir dire of three African American jurors revealed no evidence of specific bias and suggested they should have been favorable to the prosecution; and (9) the prosecutor did not strike Caucasian jurors who either preferred life without parole or equivocated on the death penalty. These circumstances establish a strong likelihood that the African American jurors were chal: lenged because of their group association. See, e.g., Hall, 35 Cal.3d at 168, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854 (noting it was “concede[d] that defendant established a prima facie case of group bias by demonstrating that five of eight peremptory challenges were used to remove black jurors, and that none remained on the jury”); Allen, 23 Cal.3d at 294-95, 152 Cal.Rptr. 454, 590 P.2d 30 (prima facie case established where district attorney challenged each of fourteen African American jurors who were tentatively seated, excluded jurors included both men and women, including individuals whose background indicated that absent their race, they would have been considered desirable jurors, excluded jurors had been engaged only in desultory voir dire, defendants were African American, and victim was Caucasian);, see also Fernandez v. Roe, 286 F.3d 1073,1078 (9th Cir.2002) (prima facie case when the prosecutor struck four out of seven (57 percent) Hispanics, and 21 percent (four out of nineteen) of the prospective juror challenges were made against Hispanics who constituted only about 12 percent of the venire).

b. Prosecutor’s Burden to Justify Every Strike

With a prima facie case established, the trial court would have moved to step two, had Petitioner’s counsel raised a Wheeler objection. At step two, the burden would have shifted to the prosecution to show that the peremptory challenges in question were not predicated on group bias alone. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 281, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. The prosecution would then bear the burden of justifying each peremptory challenge in question. Id. at 282, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. In Wheeler, the California Supreme Court stated:

If the court finds that the burden of justification is not sustained as to any of the questioned peremptory challenges, the presumption of their validity is rebutted. Accordingly, the court must then conclude that the jury as constituted fails to comply with the representative cross-section requirement, and it must dismiss the jurors thus far selected. So too it must quash any remaining venire, since the complaining party is entitled to a random draw from an entire venire — not one that has been partially or totally stripped of members of a cognizable group by the improper use of peremptory challenges. Upon such dismissal a different venire shall be drawn and the jury selection process may begin anew.

Id. (emphases added); see also People v. Fuentes, 54 Cal.3d 707, 715, 286 Cal.Rptr. 792, 818 P.2d 75 (1991) (explaining that, under Wheeler, “every questioned peremptory challenge must be justified” (emphasis added)); People v. Rojas, 11 Cal.App.4th 950, 956, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 318 (1992) (same). A Wheeler violation, thus, occurs even if a single peremptory challenge was based on group-bias. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 282, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748; see Fuentes, 54 Cal.3d at 715, 286 Cal.Rptr. 792, 818 P.2d 75 (reiterating that “the striking of a single black juror for racial reasons violates the equal protection clause” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Carrera v. Ayers, 670 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir.2011) (Tashima, J., dissenting) (“A [Wheeler] violation occurs, and a new jury must be drawn, if even a single peremptory was based on group-bias.”), superseded on reh’g en banc, 699 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.2012).

As noted previously, the following eight qualified African American jurors were called to the jury box, and every one of them was struck: Willetta Combs, Aunita Jones, Abdulel Luqman, Clarence Spiller, Sharon Penn, Patricia Fuller, Charles Threets, and Beverly Frazier. The prosecutor never submitted a declaration explaining his justifications for his peremptory challenges. Respondent suggests post hoc that some of the African American jurors, including Combs, were struck because they were equivocal about the death penalty, even though all of these jurors were death qualified. (ECF Doc. No. 403 at 21-28.) Respondent fails, however, to meet his burden of articulating a justification for each and every peremptory challenge. See Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 282, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (“If the court finds that the [prosecution’s] burden of justification is not sustained as to any of the questioned peremptory challenges, the presumption of their validity is rebutted.” (emphasis added)). The Court’s review of the voir dire transcripts reveals that, at a minimum, the peremptory challenge of prospective juror Willetta Combs, whom the prosecutor himself intended to keep “if necessary to avoid Wheeler,” (ECF Doc. No. 397-2, Ex. 14 at 19), but eventually struck, was not justified on any nondiscriminatory basis. Additionally, as further discussed below, it appears from the record that prospective jurors Abdulel Luq-man and Charles Threets should have been desirable to the prosecution but for their race.

i. Willetta Combs

Willetta Combs, an eighteen-year veteran of the U.S. Postal Service, expressed no conscientious opinions about the death penalty that would automatically make her vote against it. RT 281, 293. At first, Combs was questioned by the trial court:

Q. You don’t have anything which would prevent you from picking [the death penalty or life without parole]?

A. No.

Q. You would not always and automatically vote for life witho