Opinion ID: 2517296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prospective juror Ramirez

Text: The State advanced the following purported race-neutral justification for its challenge of prospective juror Ramirez: Ramirez . . . I think that there was . . . a language barrier there . . . and that has nothing to do with his descent, it has to do with his understanding of the English language. . . . Diomampo contends that the State improperly challenged Ramirez based upon his apparent inability to understand English. In this, he argues that this justification fails as a valid, race-neutral justification for a peremptory challenge because there is no indication in the record that Ramirez failed to understand the questions put to him and he appropriately answered all of the inquiries. In addition, he contends that dismissing Ramirez because of his purported inability to speak and understand English constituted de facto discrimination, on the basis of race and ethnicity, against the Spanish-speaking population of Clark County. Diomampo also claims that if there was any problem with Ramirez, it was that he did not speak loudly enough and the court reporter, by asking him to speak louder, corrected the problem. He further notes that neither the district court judge nor the attorneys questioned Ramirez about his ability to understand English. We conclude that the State exercised its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner by excusing Ramirez. The pertinent portion of the voir dire examination is as follows: POTENTIAL JUROR RAMIREZ: Thank you. Hi. My name is . . . Ramirez. I live in Northwest Las Vegas and I come from [unintelligible]. I live and been working for 14 years ago. My company's work is bridge on the freeways, bridge that goes . . . . THE COURT:. . . . What kind of work do you do for them? POTENTIAL JUROR RAMIREZ: Excuse me? THE COURT: What kind of work do you do for them? POTENTIAL JUROR RAMIREZ: Oh THE COURT: Construction? POTENTIAL JUROR RAMIREZ:  I am a finisher [unintelligible]. THE COURT: I'm sorry? POTENTIAL JUROR RAMIREZ: I'm a finisher [unintelligible]. THE COURT: Okay. COURT RECORDER: You need to speak up. THE COURT: And do you have a wife or significant other who works? POTENTIAL JUROR RAMIREZ: Yeah. My wife lives in Mexico. THE COURT: Okay. POTENTIAL JUROR RAMIREZ: She's coming pretty soon. THE COURT: Okay. Any kids that work? POTENTIAL JUROR RAMIREZ: No. Don't work. THE COURT: All right. If you would hand [the microphone] to Ms. Ainsworth. The record indicates that Ramirez answered each of the questions that he was asked at the jury venire; the only defect in Ramirez's communication was that he did not speak loudly enough. The record reflects an exchange between the court reporter and Ramirez that indicates a request by the reporter that Ramirez speak up. We agree with Diomampo that this request appeared to cure any communication issues that might have come up during trial. In addition, neither the prosecution nor the defense asked Ramirez about his ability, or inability, to speak or comprehend English. Accordingly, the peremptory strike against Ramirez could not have been justifiable because the State could not have plausibly concluded, based on the exchange at the jury venire, that his understanding of English was not sufficient for him to sit as a juror in the case. The fact that the prosecution admitted that it did not seek dismissal of Ramirez for cause because it did not think about his inability to speak English at the time lends even further credence to the argument that the State's race-neutral basis for dismissing Ramirez was pretextual. Thus, given the false and therefore purely pretextual nature of the challenge, all three elements of Batson were violated. [21]