Opinion ID: 1094109
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Dorsey

Text: In this case, defense counsel satisfied step one. Ms. George was a member of a distinct racial group. The trial judge then asked the prosecutor to provide a race-neutral explanation for her peremptory challenge. She satisfied her burden of production (not persuasion) by offering a race-neutral explanation. Unlike the discriminatory explanation first offered in Wright, [14] there was no predominant discriminatory intent apparent on the face of her explanation. Therefore, her explanation is deemed race-neutral for purposes of step two. Critically, and contrary to the majority suggestion, the trial judge did not end his inquiry into the prosecutor's motive with this explanation. The trial court, guided by Melbourne, looked to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the peremptory challenge. Apparently, other than Ms. George's race, there was nothing in the circumstances surrounding the challenge to suggest any discriminatory intent. So the trial judge quickly focused directly upon what he should have focused upon in this circumstancethe credibility of the prosecutor. The trial judge had to assess the genuineness of her stated motive. The trial judge was not required to test the reasonableness of the asserted nonracial motive, as was necessary when Wright was decided. On the other hand, the trial judge also could not and, in fact, did not simply accept the prosecutor's stated reason. Again, this trial court judge properly focused on the genuineness of the prosecutor's stated reason (i.e., whether her motive was proper, no matter how subjective, or improper). Throughout this entire process, the burden of persuasion to prove racial discrimination never left defense counsel. The prosecutor stated that to her Ms. George appeared disinterested. Defense counsel's rebuttal was that to him Ms. George did not appear disinterested. If one presumes the absence of discriminatory intent, this disagreement could illustrate either the typical jockeying of attorneys over the makeup of the jury or, more simply, the fact that [a] person's demeanor, subjective as it is, is subject to more than one interpretation. People v. Munson, 171 Ill.2d 158, 215 Ill.Dec. 125, 662 N.E.2d 1265, 1275 (1996). Therefore, it is perfectly logical to assume that Ms. George could have appeared attentive to the defense and inattentive to the prosecution. Only if one presumes the presence of discriminatory intent does this exchange between counsel become tainted with the aura of discriminatory intent. At this point, the sole determination for the trial judge under step three of Melbourne was whether he believed, given the totality of the circumstances surrounding the strike, that the explanation by the prosecutor was genuine and not a pretext. The burden was on the defense to prove that the asserted reason was just a pretext for racial discrimination. The trial judge's determination to accept the prosecutor's race-neutral reason as genuine and not pretextual is fully supported by what the record declares, particularly by its silence. [15] There is nothing in the record regarding the racial makeup of the venire panel that suggests a racial motivation for the strike. We know of no other strikes exercised against the same racial group. In fact, in examining the surrounding circumstances, the trial judge noted that the prosecution's first challenge was against a Hispanic female. There is also no evidence that the strike was based on reasons equally applicable to an unchallenged juror or that this prosecutor in any way singled Ms. George out for special treatment. Notably, defense counsel never sought leave to inquire further of Ms. George in order to support his argument or to assist the Court in assessing the demeanor of the challenged venireperson. This is a common and very effective practice to overcome a challenge to a venireperson in such circumstances. Given the Melbourne presumption that peremptory challenges are exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner and the complete absence in this record of any circumstance suggesting a race-based challenge, the trial court's ruling is indeed supported by the record. Defense counsel simply did not meet his burden of proof imposed by Melbourne, and the trial court's decision to sustain the strike is not clearly erroneous.
The Third District was expressly guided in its opinion by the two foundational principles of Melbourne. Ironically, the majority opinion fails to discuss or distinguish them. The Dorsey opinion quotes Melbourne and states: On appeal, reviewing courts must be mindful of two guiding principles: peremptory challenges are presumed to be exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner; and the trial court's decision, which turns primarily on an assessment of credibility, will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Dorsey v. State, 806 So.2d 559, 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In addition, the trial judge and the Third District understood an overarching principle in Melbourne that the majority in this case also ignores, maybe even jettisons: Absent intentional discrimination violative of the Equal Protection Clause, parties should be free to exercise their peremptory challenges for any reason, or no reason at all. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 374, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). In affirming the trial court's decision, the Third District correctly noted that Melbourne changed the analysis this Court applied in Wright. The Third District reached the same conclusion in English v. State, 740 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), and Washington v. State, 773 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), as did the First District in Bowden v. State, 787 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In Bowden the court stated: Prior to Melbourne, a peremptory challenge based on body language was not an acceptable reason unless observed by the trial judge and confirmed by the judge on the record. Wright v. State, 586 So.2d 1024, 1029 (Fla.1991). However, the Florida Supreme Court in Melbourne has advised us on review to use common sense and to not create traps of reversible error. Id. at 189. The Third District applied the appropriate standards and reached the correct conclusion in this case.
In its denial that Wright was altered in any way by Melbourne, the majority recedes from Melbourne and violates its core, guiding principles in at least three ways. First, as discussed above, the majority expressly limits the presumption that peremptory challenges are exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner. See majority op. at 1201. Instead, the majority reinstates the presumption of prejudice in the pre- Melbourne cases such as Wright. Second, the majority fails to give sufficient credence to the unique position of the trial court judge and his or her ability to assess the credibility of the proponent of the peremptory challenge. The very function of trial court judges in our judicial system regularly requires them to assess the credibility of both lay witnesses and attorneys when weighing evidence or ruling on evidentiary questions and motions. Trial courts have long been recognized, relied upon, and respected as competent to make exactly the type of credibility assessments the majority in this case is unwilling to entrust to them. Indeed, the full court in Melbourne entrusted trial judges with exactly this responsibility. The majority's unwillingness to defer to trial court judges in their credibility assessments of counsel's demeanor-based peremptory challenges gives birth to the majority's third violation of Melbourne. The majority fails to follow Melbourne's second guiding principle to appellate courts. That principle requires appellate courts to give great deference to the trial court and to reverse only when the trial court ruling is clearly erroneous. [16] As support for their reversal of the trial court below, the majority cites this Court's pre- Melbourne opinion in Floyd v. State, 569 So.2d 1225 (Fla.1990), in the explanation of how the holding and underpinnings of Wright were not modified by Melbourne. In doing so, the majority effectively reintroduces the reasonableness requirement specifically rejected by Melbourne. This is done by the majority's invalidating such strikes unless the trial judge personally observes the venireperson's demeanor and is thereby able to substantiate the assertion. The majority is compelled to this conclusion not only because it reverts to the Slappy presumption of prejudice, but also because it is unwilling to accept and defer to the competency of trial court judges to ferret out discriminatory motives and make those decisions that trial judges are better placed to make than appellate judges. The majority's requirement that the trial judge must both personally observe and establish record support of the venireperson's demeanor is not mandated post- Melbourne and Purkett. This is evident in the post- Melbourne practices of our own district courts of appeal, federal courts, [17] and some other state supreme courts. For example, in State v. Pink, 270 Kan. 728, 20 P.3d 31 (2001), the Supreme Court of Kansas addressed a situation very similar to that here. The defendant in Pink challenged the state's use of a peremptory challenge to remove a black venireperson. The prosecutor argued that the venireperson was struck because she was nodding and smiling broadly when a question adverse to the prosecution was asked of the jury. Id. at 34. The trial court judge noted that he did not see the venireperson nod or smile. Id. The prosecutor pointed out that from where he was sitting he could easily notice the facial expressions of this juror. Id. Defense counsel denied seeing any smiling or nodding during that portion of voir dire. Id. The trial judge stated: Well, [the prosecutor] is an officer of this Court, and if he says that that's what he observed, that's what he observed; and I find that there is a nonracial reason as enumerated, although I will admit I'm very uncomfortable with it. Id. [18] The defense argued on appeal that it was improper for the court to rely only on the prosecutor's observations. The Kansas Supreme Court stated: We remain sensitive to the care with which body language must be viewed as a reason for the striking of a juror, Walston, 256 Kan. at 380-81, 886 P.2d 349, but our standard of review does not negate the requirement that [the defendant] is obligated to carry the burden of establishing purposeful discrimination before the trial court. Although counsel for the State and [the defendant] appeared not to have viewed the same behavior of [the venireperson], it was the trial court's burden to resolve this discrepancy. As we said in State v. Vargas, 260 Kan. 791, 795, 926 P.2d 223 (1996), the best evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge, the evaluation of which lies peculiarly within the trial court's providence [sic]. The trial judge's ruling was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or one which no judge might be expected to make. Under our standard of review, we find no abuse of discretion based on the facts of this case. Pink, 20 P.3d at 35. The Supreme Court of Illinois made a similar ruling in Munson. [19] In addition to the above three breaches of Melbourne, the majority opinion also fails to recognize the practical and fundamental importance of nonverbal communication in every jury selection. Most experts estimate that more than sixty percent of all communication is nonverbal, while some experts claim the figure is as high as ninety percent. See Roberto Aron et al., Trial Communication Skills § 42:05 (2d ed.1996). Because such a large part of communication is nonverbal, the manner in which even routine information is exchanged is a useful tool for attorneys during voir dire. Treatises on jury selection are replete with discussions of the importance of identifying and interpreting nonverbal communication in jury selection. [20] In light of my criticism of the majority opinion, I must clarify my position. I too am very uneasy with peremptory challenges based solely on demeanor or bare looks and gestures. The use of peremptory challenges for discriminatory purposes is a very serious issue that every judge must be diligent to ferret out and prevent. Like the majority, I believe that such invidious use of peremptory challenges is all too frequent. However, I believe the process outlined in Melbourne is the best mechanism to address the problem. Particularly, I do not propose, as the majority wrongly suggests the trial judge did in this case, that any trial judge may sustain a peremptory challenge based solely on the good-faith statements of the proponent of the strike. Every trial court judge must closely observe the venire process and assiduously provide record support for the denial of any objection to a peremptory challenge. This is especially true when a challenge is based solely on the demeanor, body language, or bare looks and gestures of a venireperson. Before making a ruling, the trial judge must look carefully to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the challenge. The judge must firmly test the credibility of the attorney making the challenge in light of the surrounding circumstances to be sure that the motive for the strike is genuine and proper. Again, the danger of improper, race-based uses of peremptory challenges is ever present and trial judges must be vigilant gatekeepers of fair and impartial justice. This vigilance is critical to the ability of appellate courts to confidently defer to the rulings of trial courts. Nonetheless, the trial court (as well as every appellate court) must keep in mind that the presumption is that peremptory challenges are used in a nondiscriminatory manner and that the burden of proof never leaves the party challenging the strike.