Friday, November 20, 2015

United States v. Dixon, No. 14-10318 (11-20-15)(Bea with Fletcher and Berzon). This is an ACCA case where the 9th holds that California robbery is not a "crime of violence."  Under Taylor, California robbery under CPC 211 does not meet the categorical generic definition of "robbery" required for ACCA.  The state conviction contains conduct that is may not be "violent force" or may not be intentional (i.e. reckless or accidental).  The statute is not divisible.
The decision is here:

Shirley v. Yates, No. 13-16273 (11-20-15)(Reinhardt with Thomas and Christen). Habeas relief is granted because of a Batson violation.  The Batson violation occurred in the narrow set of cases where the prosecutor, in this robbery case, cannot remember why he struck prospective jurors.  The prosecutor stated that he was confident there was a race neutral reason.  However, such a statement, without corroborating evidence, is alone cannot overcome Batson's step 3. Note the 9th reverses the district court where Kozinski sat as the D.J.

The decision is here:


Post a Comment

<< Home