Opinion ID: 1730571
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prosecutor's Race-Neutral Explanation

Text: Once the defendant has made out his prima facie case, the burden of production or going forward shifts to the prosecutor, who must offer a race-neutral explanation for his exercise of peremptory strikes. Given the nature of the Batson challenge in this case, the prosecutor was obligated to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors. Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. At this stage of the Batson analysis, the sole burden which falls upon the prosecutor is to articulate reasons for his challenges that are unrelated to race or other suspect classifications; [t]he second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible. Purkett v. Elem, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995). Such an explanation, while it need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause, [21] must do more than merely affirm the prosecutor's good faith in making individual selections. Id, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. at 1723-1724. [22] Essentially, the burden on the prosecutor at this stage is to articulate reasons unrelated to impermissible classifications such as race for striking certain prospective jurors. Alternative classifications articulated by the prosecutor to justify his use of peremptory strikes cannot, however, be practically synonymous with the suspect classification allegedly being discriminated against; were we to permit such explanations to satisfy the prosecutor's burden, we would only be legitimating the practice of impermissible discrimination by proxy or pretext. See J.E.B., supra , ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1429 (gender simply may not serve as a proxy for bias). It must be remembered that in this, the second stage of the Batson analysis, the issue is the facial validity of the prosecutor's explanation; ... [u]nless discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral. Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at 363, 111 S.Ct. at 1866. The reasons given by the prosecutor for striking Devezin and Price are quoted supra. The stated reasons for striking Devezin were that her husband's uncle worked with juveniles and that she showed some weakness in her willingness to apply the death penalty. The stated reasons for striking Price were that he worked for HANO for over twenty (20) years and that he previously sat on a jury which voted on a police case of a lesser charge. Without belaboring the point we find that these reasons are facially race-neutral. They contain none of the cultural, geographic, or linguistic classifications which, due to the case with which such classifications may serve as a proxy for an impermissible classification, invite particularly exacting scrutiny. Compare Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at 357, 111 S.Ct. at 1868 (prosecutor's striking of Spanish-speaking jurors raised a plausible, though not a necessary, inference that language might be a pretext for what in fact were race-based peremptory challenges). In short, we conclude that none of the reasons articulated by the prosecutor, e.g. employment with a governmental agency, are readily associated with the suspect class which is alleged to be the object of the prosecutor's discriminatory use of peremptory strikes, i.e. prospective black jurors. For these reasons, we find that the State sustained its burden of articulating race-neutral reasons for the exercise of its peremptory strikes. Whether these reasons are substantial, and more importantly whether they are substantiated by the record, is a question to be determined in the third stage of the Batson analysis.