Opinion ID: 2598865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Venireperson Spratt

Text: The prosecutor asked venireperson Spratt about her education level because Spratt failed to indicate it on the questionnaire. Spratt said that she graduated high school and junior college. Spratt said that she served on a criminal case 5 to 6 years ago but that she vaguely remembered what the prior case was about: It wasI don't know what you would describe it as. I guess a young man and lady got into an argument at a gas station and it ended up being criminal because she said he took jewelry from her. In giving a race-neutral reason for striking Spratt from the panel, the prosecutor gave three reasons: (1) Spratt was evasive on what kind of jury trial she had served on, (2) Spratt had a hard time remembering or understanding the concept of what that case was about, and (3) that Spratt lives in the projects where there were many homicides. The defendant objected to the reference to the fact that Spratt lived in the projects. The prosecutor reminded the court that there were other reasons for her strike of Spratt. The defendant argues that living in the projects is a proxy for race, citing United States v. Bishop, 959 F.2d 820, 826 (9th Cir. 1992), wherein the court noted that where residence is utilized as a surrogate for racial stereotypesas for instance, a short hand for insensitivity to violenceits invocation runs afoul of the guaranties of equal protection. The defendant also disputes that Spratt was vague about her prior jury service. Spratt admitted that she vaguely remembered the facts of the prior case and that she was unsure about how to describe what seemed to be a simple robbery. This alone constitutes a facially valid, race-neutral reason to strike Spratt. Thus, regardless of how one might view the prosecutor's remarks concerning Spratt's residence, the defendant's Batson challenge as to Spratt fails.