Opinion ID: 1942312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Clearly Erroneous Standard Trial Judge's Factual Determination

Text: Once the prosecutor offers a race-neutral basis for his exercise of peremptory challenges, `[t]he trial court then [has] the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.' Hernandez v. New York, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1868 (quoting Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. at 1724.) In Batson, it was recognized that the issue of whether a prosecutor intended to discriminate on the basis of race, in exercising peremptory challenges, is a question of historical fact. Hernandez v. New York, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1869-1870. The Batson opinion also explained that the trial court's decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact of the sort accorded great deference on appeal. Id. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1868. After a comprehensive analysis of many possible standards of appellate review, the United States Supreme Court held, in Hernandez, that it would not overturn the trial court's finding on the issue of discriminatory intent unless convinced its determination was clearly erroneous. Id. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1871. Accord Baynard v. State, 518 A.2d at 688. The rationale for that holding in Hernandez was carefully explained: Deference to trial court findings on the issue of discriminatory intent makes particular sense in this context because, as we noted in Batson, the finding will largely turn on evaluation of credibility. 476 U.S., at 98, n. 21, 106 S.Ct. at 1724, n. 21. In the typical peremptory challenge inquiry, the decisive question will be whether counsel's race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge should be believed. There will seldom be much evidence bearing on that issue, and the best evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge. As with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the prosecutor's state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies peculiarly within a trial judge's province. Hernandez v. New York, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 1869. Accord Feddiman v. State, 558 A.2d at 286-287; Baynard v. State, 518 A.2d at 688. See also United States v. Uwaezhoke, 995 F.2d 388 (3d Cir. 1993).