Whether a trial court violates the Equal Protection Clause by removing a Filipino juror over the objection of a Filipino criminal defendant because it does not 'want any allegiance to one party' - the defendant - 'over the other based upon racial identification'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. “This Court firmly has rejected the view that assumptions of partiality based on race provide a legitimate basis for disqualifying a person as an impartial juror.” Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 59 (1992). Does a trial court violate the Equal Protection Clause when it removes a Filipino juror over the objection of a Filipino criminal defendant because it does not “want any allegiance to one party” -the defendant -“over the other based upon racial identification”? 2. Does a trial court’s removal of a seated Filipino juror over the objection of a Filipino criminal defendant because it does not “want any allegiance to one party” -the defendant -“over the other based upon racial identification” violate the defendant’s constitutional rights to an impartial jury or to due process? i PARTIES AND LIST OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS The parties to this proceeding are Petitioner Tomas Rodriguez Infante and Respondents Michael Martel, Warden, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The California Attorney General represents Respondents. Infante was convicted by jury in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on June 18, 2014 in People v. Tomas Rodriguez Infante, case no. KA100655, Judge Mike Camacho, presiding. Clerk’s transcript of trial (“CT”), district court docket 8, lodgment 1, at 148. Judgment was entered against Infante on July 8, 2014. CT 181-182. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on appeal in an unpublished opinion filed on October 26, 2015 in People v. Infante, case no. B258176. Petitioner’s