Opinion ID: 2974065
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Age as a Legitimate Race-Neutral Reason

Text: The district court did not determine whether Hibbler had made out a prima facie case, but proceeded directly to the question of whether Hibbler had shown that the government’s race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge was pretextual. Whether Hibbler made out a prima facie case is therefore moot, see Jackson, 347 F.3d at 604 (“once a party offers a race-neutral explanation 9 for a peremptory challenge and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether the defendant [has] made a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination becomes moot”), but we note in passing that we believe that Hibbler would have been able to do so. With the dismissal of Harris and Holmes, the government had used all four of its peremptory challenges on black jurors, and only one black juror remained on the panel. This at least raises an inference of a racial motivation. The government put its reasons for dismissing Harris and Holmes on the record, stating that it had reason to believe that Holmes might be biased against the Memphis Police Department and that it felt Harris was young and had little life experience. Hibbler’s only response was that although neither the Supreme Court nor this court has held that age is an impermissible factor for purposes of a peremptory challenge – and therefore may not be the basis for a Batson challenge – age is not a legitimate race-neutral reason for peremptorily challenging a black juror. It is clear that age, as a general matter, is not a prohibited reason for excluding a juror with a peremptory challenge. See United States v. Maxwell, 160 F.3d 1071, 1075 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. McCoy, 848 F.2d 743, 745 (6th Cir. 1988). Moreover, age does not correlate with any particular race more closely than with other races, so as to act as a proxy for race. See Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 769 (1995) (per curiam). The district court’s finding that Hibbler failed to rebut the government’s proffered explanation in this regard was not erroneous.