Opinion ID: 2066016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Eugene Weatherall

Text: During voir dire, Weatherall gave the court information regarding his family and friends, his work history, and his residences. He also advised the court that he had served on a jury in a civil trial several years ago, but said that he believed he could be fair and impartial. The prosecutors told the court at the Batson hearing that they exercised a peremptory challenge with respect to Weatherall because they believed, from his demeanor and his answers to the court's questions, that Weatherall was under the influence of alcohol. During voir dire, the trial court agreed that Weatherall appeared to be suffering from alcohol-related problems or a physical handicap. At the Batson hearing, the court found the State's explanations race-neutral, reasoning that the prosecutor immediately gave a race neutral reason for the exclusion of this juror, that the juror was under the influence of alcohol or other drug. The court stated that it accepted this explanation as the race neutral reason for exclusion and observed that the impairment of this juror was obvious. A prospective juror's affliction with a condition that renders the juror unable to be attentive during the course of trial is an acceptable reason for excluding that juror. (See People v. Harris (1989), 129 Ill.2d 123, 175, 135 Ill.Dec. 861, 544 N.E.2d 357.) Accordingly, the trial court's decision with respect to prospective juror Weatherall is supported in the record. The defendant contends that the prosecutor's reasons were actually a pretext for discrimination. The defendant argues that if the prosecution had truly believed that Weatherall was under the influence, the prosecutors could have challenged him for cause. The availability of a challenge for cause does not automatically render invalid the State's use of a peremptory challenge to exclude a prospective juror. In addition, it does not demonstrate that the prosecutor's reasons were merely a pretext to engage in unlawful discrimination during jury selection. The defendant also suggests that it is suspicious that the State did not request supplemental questions to determine if Weatherall was suffering from alcohol abuse or a physical handicap, and that the absence of such supplemental questioning tends to indicate a discriminatory motive. Although the trial court initially stated that it believed Weatherall was suffering from a physical handicap, the court later indicated that it agreed with the State's assessment that Weatherall was under the influence of some substance. The trial court was in a better position than this court to evaluate the nature and extent of Weatherall's condition. The trial court judge saw Weatherall during voir dire, witnessed Weatherall's reactions to questions posed to him, and was able to determine Weatherall's behavior and demeanor. We cannot say that the trial court's ruling with respect to this juror was manifestly in error.