Opinion ID: 1736768
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Jacobs v. State is controlling

Text: In Jacobs, the defendant raised his first Batson objection following the prosecutor's fourth peremptory strike of an African-American juror. By that time, however, the first three striken prospective jurors had already left the court house. The defendant nonetheless argued that he timely preserved his Batson objection and that he was therefore entitled to a remand for an evidentiary hearing on the prosecutor's reasons for challenging those three jurors. Rejecting that argument, the trial judge stated that he did not find a prima facie case supporting the objection and noted on the record that he had been `satisfied on each of the [three] challenges that there was a racially neutral reason based upon the record and answers from the prospective jurors during voir dire examination.' Jacobs, 99-0991 ( on reh'g ) at p. 1, 803 So.2d at 958. Affirming, we held that [w]hile this remedy, among others, may be available in an appropriate case, the record of voir dire in the present case reveals that the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes was so clearly justified that our consideration of a remand to determine the existence of discriminatory intent is not warranted. Jacobs, 99-0991 at p. 3, 803 So.2d at 939. In denying rehearing in Jacobs, supra, we reiterated the soundness of our decision regarding the trial court's treatment of the defendant's challenge to the first three striken jurors, stating: In the present case, the trial judge found on the basis of his personal observation of voir dire examination that the answers of the prospective jurors, and not discriminatory intent, explained the prosecutor's exercise of his first three peremptory challenges to exclude African-Americans from the jury. In our opinion on original hearing, we essentially found no abuse of the trial court's discretion because the attitudes expressed by the jurors towards capital punishment and their relationships with family members who were incarcerated made them entirely predictable targets of state peremptory challenges for specific, objective, and trial-related reasons other than race. State v. Jacobs, 99-0991 (La.7/16/01)( on reh'g ) at p. 2, 803 So.2d at 958-59. Moreover, we stressed the deference due this fact-intense decision, stating Batson accords a trial court considerable flexibility and broad discretion in this regard. Id. While the instant case involves twice as many challenges as in Jacobs, we find the same analysis applies. Applying that same analysis, we separately address in reverse order defendant's Batson and J.E.B. challenge, in particular, and defendant's reliance on bare statistics, in general.