Opinion ID: 525593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Peremptory Strikes

Text: 10 Each of the defendants is black and hispanic. The venire consisted of forty-one individuals. Six of the veniremen were black and eight had Hispanic surnames. The government had six peremptory strikes, all of which it used to excuse black or hispanic veniremen. The jury consisted of ten whites, two blacks, with one white alternate and one hispanic alternate. Additionally, several of the jurors spoke Spanish. The defendants contend that the prosecutor used his peremptory strikes to excuse jurors solely on account of their race and in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 11 In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the Supreme Court held that: The equal protection clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable to impartially consider the state's case against a black defendant. Id. at 89, 106 S.Ct. at 1718. Consequently, a prosecutor is authorized to peremptorily challenge minority jurors only if the state can demonstrate a racially neutral reason for the challenge. There are three elements to a prima facie case under Batson. 12 First, defendant must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group ... and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race. Second, defendant can rely on the fact that peremptory challenges may disguise racial discrimination. Third, the defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. 13 United States v. Forbes, 816 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir.1987) (citations omitted). 14 Once a defendant has made a prima facie showing that the prosecutor's strikes were racially motivated, the burden shifts to the government to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging the jurors of the defendant's race. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. 15 In this case the defendants made their prima facie case under Batson. At the request of defense counsel the court then required that the prosecutor offer neutral explanations for his challenges. The prosecutor stated that he struck juryman number 13, a black man, because the prosecutor detected a hostile attitude toward police officers during defense voir dire. The prosecutor struck juryman number 16, a hispanic man, because of his response to questions regarding the problems that the city had recently had with its undercover officers. Juror number 21, a hispanic male, juror number 26, a black female, and juror number 28, a black female, were stricken because the prosecutor believed that they would not impartially view the evidence due to the fact that they were young, single, unemployed and inexperienced. In addition, juror number 28 had previously served on a jury in a case involving cocaine and a guilty verdict had not been reached. The prosecutor struck alternate juror number 34, a hispanic male, based on the prosecutor's gut reaction that a commercial artist would have sympathy for persons involved with drugs. The defendants challenged the government's explanations on the grounds that they were pretext. The district court responded with a finding that the government's explanations are accurate. 16 Where, as here, the district court requires the prosecution to explain its use of its peremptory challenges and finds no racial discrimination, the appellate court's review is a deferential one. United States v. Forbes, 816 F.2d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir.1987). Since the trial judge's findings in the context under consideration here largely will turn on evaluation of credibility, a reviewing court ordinarily should give those findings great deference. Id. at 1010. As we noted in United States v. Terrazas-Carrasco, 861 F.2d 93, 95 (5th Cir.1988). Valid reasons for exclusion may include 'intuitive assumptions' upon confronting a veniremen ... eye contact, demeanor, age, marital status, and length of residence in the community. Here the prosecutor provided valid neutral explanations for each of its strikes. The district court evaluated the credibility of the explanations and found that they were not pretextual. Giving great deference to these findings, we conclude that the court did not err in rejecting the defendant's challenge to these strikes.