Opinion ID: 2569529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: C. and C.J.

Text: The State explained that it struck H.C. and C.J. because they had children that were approximately the same age as Adams. H.C.'s children were ages 1, 16, 18, and 21. C.J.'s children were ages 14, 15, 16, and 19. Adams argues the State's alleged race-neutral reason for striking H.C. and C.J. is also a pretext. There were Caucasian members of the jury who had children of similar ages. As an example, Adams points to D.P., who had children the ages of 21 and 26, and P.M., who had children aged 16 and 27. Adams was 21 at the time of trial. Adams argues that the determination of whether the State's race-neutral reasons are supported by the record is a question of first impression for this court. Adams is mistaken. In Walston, we said: The fact that a prosecutor strikes an African-American juror, supposedly for Reason A, but does not strike a white juror, who exhibited the same Reason A, is certainly circumstantial evidence that the State is purposefully discriminating against African-Americans. This kind of circumstantial evidence may be sufficiently compelling in some cases to convince a trial court that the State is purposefully discriminating and that its race-neutral reasons are pretextual. However, comparison-based circumstantial evidence should not be considered conclusive in every case, as a matter of law. 256 Kan. at 381. In Walston, the comparative analysis advanced on appeal was not presented to the trial court at the time the Batson objection was made. We have the same facts here. Adams' counsel failed to point out to the district court that there were white jurors with children the same age as the defendant. From the record, it appears the prosecutor was striking jurors that had children the same age as Adams when he committed the crimes (19), not his age at trial (21). This was Adams' second trial. The jury in the first trial was divided, nine votes to convict and three to acquit. The prosecutor explained that the three individuals who wanted to acquit Adams in his first trial had children the same age as Adams. The prosecutor explained to the district court that she failed to ask prospective jurors from the first trial whether they had children and what ages the children were. She did not intend to repeat that omission at Adams' second trial. The prosecutor explained, I struck quite a number of people, both black and white on this panel, because they had children that appeared to be around the same age that Terry Adams was. H.C. had a child age 18. C.J. had a child age 19. Both were excused by the State. The two Caucasian jurors Adams points to did not have children age 18 or 19. D.P.'s children were 21 and 26. P.M.'s children were 16 and 27. The record shows that the prosecutor's strikes were consistent with her race-neutral explanation. She struck jurors who had children the same age (18 or 19) as Adams was at the time of the crime. We observe that the prosecutor had additional peremptory strikes she could have used in an attempt to remove all African-Americans from the jury. She did not do so. The presence of African-Americans on the jury is one of several factors we consider in deciding whether race-based strikes have occurred. See State v. Kingsley, 252 Kan. 761, 779, 851 P.2d 370 (1993); U. S. v. Grandison, 885 F.2d 143, 147 (4th Cir. 1989). Adams carries the ultimate burden of proving purposeful discrimination. See State v. Arteaga, 257 Kan. 874, 882, 896 P.2d 1035 (1995). The State's explanations for these strikes satisfy the standard for facial validity put forth in Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 131 L. Ed.2d 834, 115 S. Ct. 1769 (1995). In State v. Vargas, 260 Kan. 791, 795, 926 P.2d 223 (1996), we analyzed Purkett. We said: The Purkett court observed that the second step of the Batson process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible, but requires merely facial validity of the prosecutor's explanation. It determined further that unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral. It concluded that the ultimate burden of persuasion rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike. Purkett, 131 L. Ed 2d at 839. The Purkett decision has been criticized for affording attorneys too much leeway in formulating race-neutral justifications for challenges. See generally Cavise, The Batson Doctrine: The Supreme Court's Utter Failure to Meet the Challenge of Discrimination in Jury Selection, 1999 Wis. L. Rev. 501, 529-530 (1999). It is important to emphasize, however, the district judge's authority to reject pretextual race-neutral justifications in executing the third step of the Batson test. This step entails a decision as to whether the defense has carried its burden of proving purposeful discrimination by the prosecution, a determination resulting from a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available. Batson, 476 U.S. at 93 (quoting Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266, 50 L. Ed 2d 450, 97 S. Ct. 555 [1977]). Because the district judge's findings largely will turn on evaluation of the credibility of the prosecutor's explanation, we ordinarily accord his or her findings great deference. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n.21. Adams' Batson argument fails. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the State's reasons were racially neutral. Affirmed. LOCKETT and ALLEGRUCCI, JJ., concur in the result.