Opinion ID: 2968018
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ms. Randleman

Text: In response to Kandies’s Batson challenge, the State asserted that it peremptorily struck Ms. Randleman because although her juror questionnaire form indicate[d] that she had not been convicted of any criminal offense, a check of her criminal record revealed that she had been convicted of worthless checks and two speeding violations. J.A. 131. In addition, the State asserted that Ms. Randleman was hesitant on death penalty questions. Id. Such reasons undoubtedly constitute race neutral reasons that are clear, sufficiently specific and related to the case. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97-98. Consequently, once the State put forth these race neutral reasons, Kandies had the burden of establishing that they were pretextual. Kandies, however, failed to argue that the State’s proffered reasons were pretextual. In fact, Kandies did not even rebut the State’s proffered reasons when given the opportunity. Having failed to argue that the State’s proffered reasons 22 KANDIES v. POLK were pretextual, Kandies waived his Batson challenge and thus I review it for plain error. Davis v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 160 F.3d 1023, 1027 (4th Cir. 1998)([W]e now follow the lead of other circuits that have held that the movant’s failure to argue pretext constitutes a waiver of his initial objection.); see also United States v. Jackson, 347 F.3d 598, 605 (6th Cir. 2003)(If a defendant fails to rebut a race-neutral explanation at the time it was made, the district court’s ruling on the objection is reviewed for plain error.). For the district court’s ruling to constitute plain error, Kandies must show that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., obvious or clear, (3) the error affected substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 73134, 736 (1993). Here, I find that the trial court did not err by overruling Kandies’s Batson challenge to the peremptory removal of Ms. Randleman because the State proffered race neutral reasons that were clear, sufficiently specific and related to the case. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97-98. Because I find that the trial court did not commit an error in overruling Kandies’s Batson challenge, I need not proceed with plain error review.