John Q. Hamm, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections v. Michael Sockwell

Sockwell’s Batson claim was rejected four times before the Eleventh Circuit re-read a single phrase in the 1990 trial transcript to infer discrimination. But the panel majority was not free to find its own facts unless Sockwell satisfied 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(2), (e)(1). He did not. He offered the same reading of the frozen cold voir dire transcript already rejected by the state courts, whose findings must be presumed correct, App.55a.n2 (Luck, J., dissenting). Nor did the court require that Sockwell prove clear error, the appellate standard for Batson claims. Review of this pure issue of fact, credibility, and demeanor should have been highly deferential, but the panel majority “refuse[d]” to defer, App.58a (Luck, J., dissenting). This Court should summarily reverse on this question presented:

1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. §2254. The writ of habeas corpus is an equitable remedy, and federal courts must issue the writ only “as law and justice require.” Brown v. Davenport, 596 U.S. 118, 312 (2022) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §2243). Addressing the State’s argument that Sockwell’s guilt should count against releasing him, the Eleventh Circuit held that habeas relief is automatic for any Batson violation identified on collateral review; no equitable analysis is required. The second question presented is:

2. Whether a federal court may grant habeas relief to a guilty state prisoner upon identifying a Batson violation but without determining that “law and justice” require such relief.