Opinion ID: 1722483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Peremptory Challenges of Jurors Berry and Pietrzykowski

Text: At issue in the present case is the prosecutor's objection to defense counsel's exercise of peremptory challenges against prospective jurors Faircloth, Owen, Berry and Pietrzykowski. Defense counsel contends that the trial judge erred in maintaining the objections to the latter two jurors. Five days into jury selection, the parties had accepted five white jurors and two black jurors. [2] The defense had used five of its twelve peremptory challenges, four against white males [3] and one against a black female [4] . At that point defense counsel made an unsuccessful Batson objection when the prosecutor struck a black female. Then the prosecutor made a McCollum objection when defense counsel struck a white male. As race-neutral reasons for the challenge, defense counsel stated that the white male appeared hesitant about returning a life sentence and was otherwise preoccupied with the impact of lengthy jury service on his business. The judge overruled the prosecutor's McCollum objection and allowed the defense to exercise its sixth peremptory challenge. Thereafter, the trial judge, recognizing that the jury panel would not be sufficient to provide the necessary twelve jurors and alternates, ordered the members of the jury venire from another division of court, who had been dismissed from service in that division, to report for service in the present case. [5] Defense counsel at the outset expressed his dissatisfaction with the racial composition of the tales jurors, objecting on the grounds that the venire was primarily white and therefore did not represent a fair cross-section of the parish. Defense counsel also commented that no one knew the reasons for dismissal of the jurors from the other division. The trial judge overruled the objection, and the tales jurors from the other division were brought in for voir dire. All five of the tales jurors in the first group called for voir dire, which included the four jurors at issue here, were white. Both sides questioned the jurors extensively on many issues, including their attitudes toward the death penalty and their willingness to consider both death and life sentences. After the questioning, the prosecutor challenged one tales juror for cause based on her attitude toward capital punishment. The judge agreed with the prosecutor and excused that juror, but denied two defense cause challenges against Owen and Faircloth. Court was then adjourned for the day. The next morning, voir dire resumed with the same group of four prospective jurors. After the prosecutor concluded his examination, defense counsel quickly concluded his examination and then exercised peremptory challenges to strike all four white panelists. The prosecutor made a McCollum objection on the basis that the challenges of all four white jurors constituted a prima facie showing of racial discrimination. Ruling that the burden had shifted, the trial judge ordered defense counsel to provide race-neutral reasons for the challenges. Defense counsel explained that the four prospective jurors were all pro death, pointing out that the jurors indicated they would have difficulty returning a life sentence, and he rested on the totality of the record. The prosecutor responded that the seven jurors already accepted were pro death because they can return a death penalty, arguing that we are not going to have anybody up here that is not pro death. The trial judge, pointing out that all four jurors stated they could recommend a sentence of life imprisonment according to the circumstances, asked the defense to provide further explanation of the reasons underlying the challenges. Defense counsel then stated, Your honor, basically our reason is very simple. All these jurors are leaning toward death. And that's our only reason. The trial judge then accepted the race-neutral explanation as to Owen and Faircloth, based upon their answers, and he allowed defense counsel's peremptory challenges and excused those jurors. Pointing out that there were degrees of death penalty leanings, the judge noted that Owen's leaning was the strongest one and Faircloth's leaning established at least some neutral reason for the challenge. However, the judge ruled that the use of peremptory challenges on Berry and Pietrzykowski constituted a Batson-McCollum violation. The judge therefore rejected the peremptory challenges and seated Berry and Pietrzykowski on the jury. Expanded reasons for the ruling were later provided as follows: We think that Defense Counsel did not give us an adequate, rational basis for those and although [defense counsel] felt they could stand on the record, I think the record will speak for itself. It's difficult for the Court to give a Batson challenge; however, in this case, I have no other alternative. I feel like the scratches were made for a racially made basis. I think the arguments of Counsel about this jury coming in were racially made and a part of the reasons these people were excluded. The record will reflect that they objected to the second jury coming in because there were more white people than black people. And from that, we see Defense Counsel excluding all the white people that were in the box. (emphasis added).