-1-



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON A s s i gne d on B r i e f s J une 2, 2004 

### STAT E O F T EN NE SSEE v. TH ADD AE US MED FO RD
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County

No. 7065 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2003-01544-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jun e 29, 2004

The De fendant, Thaddeaus Medford, w as convic ted of thre e counts involving the de l i v er yand a tte mpt e d d e liv e ry

of cocai ne. I n h is f

ir st a pp e a l, the De fe nd a nt c on te nd e d, in p art , th a t th e State us e d a pe re mpt ory

c hall eng e to e xclu de a

po te nti a l ju ro r b a se d o n r a c e . We re ma nd e d th e c a se for the trial court to dete rm ine whethe r the State’s c halleng e wa s based upon a rac ially -neutra l re as o n. On rema nd, the trial court determined that the State’s challeng e was based upon a rac ially -neutra l rea son, and the De fendant appea ls, contending that this finding by the trial court is i n e rr or . F ind ing no e rr or , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court , in which, D AVI D H. W EL L ES and D AVI D G. H AYES , J J ., joined
Clifford K. McG owan, Jr., Waverly , Tenne ssee ( on appea l), Gary F. Antrican and J ulie K. Pill ow, Somerville, Tenne ssee ( at trial), f or the a ppellant Thadde aus Medf ord. Paul G. Summers, Att o rney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; J ennife r L . Ble dsoe, Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Eliz abeth T. Rice, District Attorney Gene ral; Trac ey Br ewe r, Assistan t District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
This case arises out of the Def endant’ s conviction for thre e counts involving the delivery a nda tte mpt e d d e liv e ry

of coc a ine . In th e De fe nd a nt’ s f ir st a pp e a l, h e c on te nd e d th a t th e State i m p r o p e r l y e x c l u d e d a

j u r o r o f h i s s a m e r a c e , C o r e y H a n n ah , i n v i o l a t i o n o f B a t s o n v . K e n t u c k y, 4 7 6 U. S

. 7 9 (1 9 8 6 ). T h i s C o u rt re m an d ed t h e c as e f o r ah ea ri n g o n t h e i s s u e, s t at i n g:-2-

A. Standard of

Review
I n Batson, the United States Supreme Court held that a state’s use of pere mptory

chal l enges to intentionally exclude jurors of the de fendant’s rac e violates the def

endant’ s rig ht to equal protec tion. 476 U.S. at 89. . . .
A d e fe nd a nt seekin g to r a ise a B a tso n c la im m us t f

ir st m ake a

prima fa c ie showing of purpose ful discrimination ag ainst a prospe ctive j u ro r. Batson, 476 U.S. at 9 3 -9 4

. T he def endant must establish that a c onsideration of a ll the rele vant circ umstances r aises an inf erence of purpose ful discrimination. Woodson v. P orter B rown Limestorne Co., 916 S.W .2d 896, 903 (Tenn. 1996)

. Once the def

endant e s t ab l ishes a prima f acie showing of purpose ful discrimination, the burden the n sh i ft s to the state to establish a ne utral basis for the cha lleng e. B atson, 476 U.S. at 97. The state ’s explanation cannot be ba sed on mere “stere otypical assumptions,” but it need not ri s e t o the level of a challeng e for

cause . State v. Ellison, 8 4 1 S

. W

. 2 d 824, 826 (Tenn. 1992) (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 97).
I n rul in g on pe re mpt ory c ha lle ng e s, the tria l c ou rt mus t g ive sp e c if

ic rea sons for ea ch of i t s fa ctual findings. Woodson 916 S .W.2d at 906. The trial c ou rt sh ou ld e xpla in w hy the ob je c tin g pa

rty ha s o r h a s n ot e sta

bli sh e d a prima fa c ie sh ow ing of

pu rp os e fu l di scr im in a tio n. I f the de fe nd a nt h a s ma de a prima f a c ie s h o w in g th e c o u r t mu s t d e te r mi n e w h e th e r th e s tate g a v e a n e u tral re ason and whe ther it finds that the cha lleng e was the r esult of purposef ul discrimination. State v. Carroll, 34 S.W.3d 317, 3 19 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) . The trial c ourt’s finding s are to be ac corde d g reat weig ht an d wi l l not be set aside unle ss they are clea rly err oneous. Woodson, 916 S.W .2d at 916.
B. A nal ys is
Th e re c or d r e ve a ls that th e de fe nd a nt i s A fric a n- Am e ri c a n. Dur in g v oir dire, a n Afric an-A merican male juror indicated that he wa s re l at ed to a law enfor ceme nt office r. . . . During the initial round of pe re m p tory challeng es, the state c halleng ed the Afric an-A merican male juror. T he following then occ urre d at a be nch confe renc e: The Court: Ther e is an objec tion to t h e ch all eng e—the one challeng e—that the state has made

. [S tate]: [ y ]our Honor, [defense c ounsel] direct l y asked if the re w as any body o n t h i s j ury

that was re lated to law e nforc ement and actua lly direc tly asked that j u ro r i n particula r and on his juror-3- ques t ionnaire he say s that he is related to a law e nforc ement office r. Th e Cou rt : I f the Cou rt

fi nd s th at for so me re a so n o the r tha n th os e re a s o n s ab o u t[s i c ] B a t s o n , t o o b j e c tt o t h a tj u r o r , t h i s i s t h e f i r st challeng e and the re’ s ce rt ai n ly been no pattern shown. You c an alway s use the per emptory challeng es. The c ourt will allow— [De fe ns e Cou ns e l]: Y ou r H on or , I wo uldstate fo r the re c or d in this case that it appe ars that the State ha s rem o v ed a member of the Afric an-A merican rac e on the ba sis that in myhumble o pinion wo uldbe ne fi t th e State in that [ he] in dicate s th a t [he ’s ] re la te d to law enf orce ment autho ri ties which would be indicative of a g ood juror for t h e S tate and othe r than ra ce, the fac t that my client is of the sa me ra c e , I se e no le g iti ma te re a so n fo r the e xclu sion of th is prospec tive juror. The Court: Anything e ls e? (N o aff irmative re sponse) Okay . Thank y ou. As stated, a de fendant must first establish a prima fac ie case of pur poseful d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
. B a t s o n , 4 7 6 U

. S

. a t9 3

- 9 4 ; W o o d s o n , 9 1 6 S

. W

. 2 d a t9 0 2

. In making this determination, all rele vant circ umstances should be c onsidered, including any

pattern of

strik es, questions and stateme nts during voir dire, a nd the rec og nized in fe re n ce that pere mptory challeng es cr eate an atmospher e which allows discriminatio n
. Woodson, 916 S .W.2d at 904. Although a “ pattern” of strike s a g a ins t a

ra c ia l g ro up c a n g ive ri se to an in fe re nc e of dis c ri min ati on , it is o n l y o n e w a y t o es t ab l i s h a p ri m a f ac i e c as e. E l l i s o n , 8 4 1 S

. W

. 2 d at8 2 7 (c i t i n g, Batson, 476 U.S. at 97). Thus, the exclusion of only one min o ri ty

juror can constitut e a prima fac ie ca se. I d. I n other wor ds, the defe ndant does not nece ssarily

have to e stablish a pattern of strikes t o establish a prima f acie case
. The d ef endant may

also rely

upon the prosec utor’s statements a nd any other rele vant circ umstances. B atson, 476 U.S. at 97; Ellison, 841 S .W.2d 826-27.
Th e tr ia l c ou rt

imp lic itl y

fo un d that th e def

e nd a nt h a d n ot m a de a

prima fa c ie sh owi ng of

pu rp os e fu l di sc ri min a tio n. We c on c lud e the tria l c ou rt e rr e d in finding the def

endant f ailed to establish a p ri m a facie ca se bec ause this was the “first challeng e,” and the defe ndant had not show n a “pattern” o f d i s crimi natory challeng es. He re , th e de fe nd a nt andthe e xclu de d ju ror were of the sa me min ority ra ce
. T h e st ate of

fer ed an e x planation for the challeng e prior to the trial court’s reque st for an e x planation. On its fac e, the ex p l anation is rac e-ne utral but, as the de fe nd a nt a

rg ue d, is c on tr ary

to the us ual prac tice of the state wh ic h o rd ina

ri ly would p r e f

e r a ju r o r r e late d to la w e n f o r c e me n t au th o r it ie s
. T h e tria l c o u r t made no finding as to the cr edibi l i t y of the state’ s expl anation, pre cluding such aW e no te tha t t h e D e fen d a n t’s na m e is sp e lled in tw o w a ys; “T h a d d a e u s” a n d “T h e d d a e u s.” 1

-4- finding by

its conclusion that no p ri m a fa ci e case ha d been e stablished by the defe ndant.
We re c og nize that the state ’s c ha lle ng e ma y we ll ha ve been race-ne utr a l, and the state leg itimately did not want a juror r elated t o law enf orce ment au t h o ri t i es
. Fu rt h er , t h e s t at e m ay h a v e h ad ad d i t i o n al re as o n s fo r t h e c h al l en ge that w e re no t a dv a nc ed by thestate du e to the ru lin g of thetr ia l c ou rt

. Neve rtheless, we conclude that the def endant e stab lished a prima f acie case , thus requ i ri n g t he trial c ourt to determine w hether the state’s e x clusion of the juror was indee d rac e-ne utral. The pr oper r emedy is to remand to the trial c ourt for a hearing on the is issue pursuant to the proce dure se t forth in Ellison. S ee 841 S.W. 2da t 82 6. I f the tr ia l c ou rt fi nd s f or th e st ate , it sha ll r e ins ta te the jud g me nt. I f it finds for the de fendant, the defe ndant shall be g rante d a new trial.
State v. Thedda eus Medfor d, No. W2001-02930-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 W L141049, at *2-3 1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jan. 14, 2003).
On re mand, the trial court he ld a hea ring to determine w hether the State excluded the pr os pe c tiv e jur or

fo r a ra c ia lly -n e utr a l r e a so n. At thehe ari ng the State tol d th e c ou rt : [The St a te ]: Y o u r

H o n o r , th e r e a s o n b e h in d u s in g Co r e y H a n n ah a s a

p e r emptory challeng e for

the State was that we didn’ t fe el t h at Corey Hannah was g oing to be a n ind ivi du a l that wo uld be trus tw orthy e no ug h to be on thi s jury pool becaus e when [defe nse counse l] . . . asked if the re ha d been any o f t h es e indi viduals that we re re la te d to la w e nf

or c e me nt, that he , in fa c t, did no t re sp on d t o [ defe ns e c ou ns e l’ s] qu e sti on . O n h is q ue sti on na ir e he pu ts, on qu e sti on nu mbe r 26 , th a t, i n fa c t, that he wa s r e la te d to Of fi c e r R ita B urne tt.

. . . . [The State] : Your Hono r, after not being truthful with [ defe nse counse l] and not responding to his question of whether or not he was, in f

ac t , related to any

lawenfor ceme nt office r, anothe r issue ar ose for the State to consider w ho that pa rt ic ula r o ff ic e r w a s. Th a t pa rt ic ula r o fficer, Rita

B urne tt, be ing on the Rip le y Pol ic e De pa

rt me nt, is also related to Terr ance Burnett, who has be en convic t ed of life without par ole, two cou n ts o f

f e lo n y f ir s t- d e g r e e mu r d e r , tw o c o u n ts o f a tt e mp te d f

ir s t- d e g r ee mur de r, a nde sp e c ia lly

a g g ra vate d b ur g lary . Sh e is a lso re la te d to Da rren B urne tt, who has be en co n v i ct ed of a felony failure to appea

r and a lso feder al drug convictions. And then the third pe rson that s he wa s relate d to was Jeffre y-5-

Burnett, all three of these be ing he r sons. And Jeffre y Burnett was killed in a drive -b y sh oo tin g in the a djo ini ng c ou nty , inDy e r C ou nty , th a t w a s r e late d to dr ug a c tiv ity

on his pa rt

. We did not feel that this offi ce r woul d be someone that we want one of the juror s to be re lated to that could be f orthcoming as a juror and vote in our f avor, and that is the rea son that we e x cluded this juror fr om the jury pool.
The De fendant’ s co unsel responde d that Corey Hannah was e x cluded ba sed solely upon rac e. T h e tr i a l c o u r t f

o u n d “ t h e S t a t e h a d a r a c e
- n e u tr a l b a s i s f o r t h e c h a l l e n g [ e ] , t h a t b e i n g c r e d i b i l i t y, and the c onviction i s re i n s t ated.” The trial c ourt then suspende d the balanc e of the Def endant’ s sentenc e, giv i n g h i m cre dit for time that he alr eady serve d. The trial c ourt combined the ba lance of the sente nce r emaining with a s en tence that the Def endant wa s curr ently

serving for a differ ent conviction.
As stated above , t h e t ri al co u rt’s finding s are to be ac corde d g reat weig ht and will not be se t a sid e un le ss the y

are c le arl y

e rr on e ou s. Woo ds on , 9 16 S.W. 2da t 91 6. Th e reis n o p ro of in the re c or d u po n w hic h w e c a n c on c lud e that th e tria l co urt ’s fi nd ing s in thi s c a se arec le arl y err oneous. There fore , in acc ordanc e with the for eg oing, w e conc lude that the Defendant is not e nti tle d to re lie f, a ndwe AF F I RM the jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

________________________________________

J UDGE ROB ERT W. W EDEMEYER