Opinion ID: 2517296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prospective juror Nelson

Text: The State advanced the following purported race-neutral justification for its challenge of prospective juror Nelson: [Nelson] was adamant about his divorce. . . . I would be concerned about his ability to work with . . . women on the jury and aboutI was concerned about his ability to work with the people on the jury in that regards. Diomampo contends that there is no evidence that Nelson was adamant about his divorce. In this, he asserts that another potential juror, juror Nachtigall claimed that domestic violence marked her marriage and was having a war over money with her husband. [22] Diomampo further argues that at least two other nonminority jurors described themselves as divorced and were not excused. We conclude that the State violated Batson in dismissing Nelson. In this, we determine that the record does not support the conclusion that Nelson was adamant about his divorce or would be unable to interact with female jurors. Nelson merely stated that he was divorced. Nachtigall, on the other hand, characterized her divorce as a war and appeared to have a far more extreme response than Nelson. Because the prosecutor failed to ask follow-up questions of Nelson and subsequently failed to dismiss nonminority jurors who were also divorced under comparable or worse circumstances, we conclude that the State's reasons for dismissing Nelson were pretextual in nature.