Opinion ID: 2226959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Steven Gillenwater

Text: Gillenwater, a 35-year-old married man, was employed as a social worker for pregnant teenagers at a Chicago area hospital. The State's explanation for the exclusion of Gillenwater was based not only upon his educational background as a social worker, but also because of his demeanor and his highly equivocal answers as to whether he could actually sign a verdict to impose the death penalty. Defendant argues that the State's reason for excluding Gillenwater based upon his employment as a social worker is inconsistent with the fact that other jurors who were seated possessed similar occupations. Review of the record during the voir dire of Gillenwater reveals his level of discomfort with imposing the death penalty. Gillenwater stated that he was pretty strongly opposed to the death penalty. Although he could put his feelings aside and base his decision on the evidence presented at trial, he indicated that he did not like it, but there is not a heck of a lot I can do about it right now. In resolving Batson claims, this court has consistently upheld prosecutor's challenges concerning the person's viewpoints toward the death penalty. ( People v. Howard (1991), 147 Ill.2d 103, 167 Ill.Dec. 914, 588 N.E.2d 1044; People v. Mack (1989), 128 Ill.2d 231, 131 Ill.Dec. 551, 538 N.E.2d 1107.) We therefore find that the trial court correctly concluded that the State's reason for challenging Gillenwater on the basis of his viewpoint on capital punishment was legitimate and race neutral.