Opinion ID: 3135452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Batson Procedure

Text: -12- In attempting to apply the above-mentioned principles to the facts before us, we find that our review is hampered by the inadequacy of the Batson hearing that was held below and the cause must therefore be remanded for a Batson hearing. Defendant now attempts to compare Hicks, the excluded African-American venireman in question, to jurors Hunninghaus, Katulka and Pick. Yet the race of these three jurors is not disclosed in the record. One might presume that they are not African-American–otherwise, the fact that they were accepted as jurors would render inane defendant’s comparison argument, as it would be hard to fathom any racial motivation in striking Hicks if the other jurors who gave arguably equivocal answers were the same race as Hicks. But, on the other hand, we are not comfortable with presuming facts not contained in the record, and defendant has made no representation before this court that the jurors in question are in fact nonblack. See People v. Andrews, 146 Ill. 2d 413, 429-30 (1992) (this court rejected the State’s suggestion that defendant should have been required to call the excluded venirepersons to testify at the Batson hearing to establish their race where defense counsel had made a record at the original voir dire in the form of his own statements about the number of strikes used against black venirepersons); People v. Townsend, 275 Ill. App. 3d 200, 206 (1995) (the court had no basis for making a comparison between seated jurors and rejected venire members where defendant failed to make a record of the racial makeup of the seated jurors, either before or after the Batson objection); People v. Gray, 252 Ill. App. 3d 362, 372 (1993) (court would not engage in speculation and conjecture where the defendant established only that two African Americans were excluded from the jury but failed to preserve the record as to the race of the jury or the other excluded venire members). Nor do we know for sure from the record such facts as the total number of African Americans in the venire compared to the total number that served on the jury, or the total number of African Americans that were struck by use of peremptory challenges by the State. Ordinarily, the party asserting a Batson claim has the burden of proving a prima facie case and preserving the record, and any ambiguities in the record will be construed against that party. Rivera I, 221 Ill. 2d at 512; People v. Henderson, 142 Ill. 2d 258, 279-80 -13- (1990). A different approach, however, is taken when a trial court acts to conduct a Batson hearing sua sponte. In Rivera I, this court held that a trial court has standing to raise a Batson issue sua sponte in the appropriate circumstances. Rivera I, 221 Ill. 2d at 504. But Rivera I further noted that a prima facie case of discrimination “must be abundantly clear before a trial court acts sua sponte.” Rivera I, 221 Ill. 2d at 505. When a trial court acts sua sponte to conduct a Batson hearing, it “ ‘must make an adequate record consisting of all relevant facts, factual findings, and articulated bases’ for its finding of a prima facie case.” Rivera II, 227 Ill. 2d at 5, quoting Rivera I, 221 Ill. 2d at 515. We believe that the present situation resembles Rivera I, where the trial court raised a Batson problem sua sponte. Here, the trial court conducted proceedings off the record and we do not know what defense counsel argued. All we know for certain is that the trial court began a Batson proceeding by asking the State to supply an explanation for its challenge to Hicks without a “formal” objection by defense counsel. It would have been better had the trial court plainly asked defense counsel, “Do you want to make a Batson objection, yes or no?” If no, the court should have dropped the matter unless it was “abundantly clear” that a prima facie case existed. If indeed defense counsel did want to make an objection, the court should have proceeded with the Batson hearing by first hearing from defense counsel as to whether a prima facie case existed. It is clear that the trial court felt that no Batson motion had been made and that it could therefore conduct its own unorthodox inquiry sua sponte, to be “fair to the defense and the court system.” The court then asked the State to offer a reason for its peremptory challenge to Hicks, which the State complied with by asserting that Hicks had equivocated in his answer to whether he could be a fair juror. Once the trial court began its inquiry and the State had offered its reason for the strike, the record shows, for the first time that at least one of defendant’s attorneys did desire to make a Batson objection. The trial court at that point, however, became preoccupied with eliciting from defense counsel an admission that he had in fact not made a formal Batson objection while off the record. This seems to have clouded the rest of the proceedings, preventing both sides from making full arguments on their respective positions. After -14- establishing that no Batson objection had been made, the trial court then drifted into an inquiry into the State’s use of a peremptory challenge against another African American venireman, Andre Honorable.1 When the trial court returned the discussion to Hicks, it simply found that the State’s reason was race neutral, noting that Hick’s comment, “he thinks he could be fair,” was a race-neutral reason. The trial court’s assessment that the State’s reason was race neutral is no doubt true, as a “neutral explanation” means any “explanation based on something other than the race of the juror.” See Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360, 114 L. Ed. 2d at 406, 111 S. Ct. at 1866 (plurality op.). The trouble is that the court stopped its analysis there. It never did reach the third stage of Batson, which requires the court to consider whether defendant has shown purposeful discrimination in light of the parties’ submissions. The trial court never considered defendant’s argument that the reason offered by the State was pretextual in light of defendant’s argument that other jurors had equivocated in a similar fashion. Instead, it stopped its analysis upon being given a race-neutral explanation, ruling that it was “enough.” The trial court’s comments in ruling on defendant’s posttrial motion also do not engender confidence that the court moved beyond the second step to consider whether the reason proffered by the State was pretextual and whether the defendant had met his burden of proving purposeful discrimination. In denying defendant’s posttrial motion based on Batson, the court simply stated as follows: “[L]ooking at Batson, again I was there, I find that there was–Batson to me is an outstanding case and any violation of it is reprehensible, I found there was no violation of Batson, so that’s my ruling on that.” The trial court also did not make any findings with respect to the credibility of the prosecutor, or with respect to the demeanor of Hicks and the accepted jurors who allegedly equivocated in their answers. 1 The State initially moved to excuse Honorable for cause because he hesitated before stating that he could not remember if he or a family member had ever been a victim of a crime, even though he marked “yes” to that question on his juror questionnaire. The trial court denied the challenge for cause. The State then used a peremptory challenge to excuse Honorable. Defendant did not object to that strike and he makes no Batson argument with respect to Honorable before this court. -15- Although it is true that defendant did not specifically name the jurors in question, it is also true that the trial court did not ask defense counsel to elaborate or provide any more detail as to his argument on pretext. Again, the judge had the obligation to make a complete record for our review in this setting where he was essentially acting sua sponte. What the record does show is that the trial court collapsed the three-step Batson procedure into one step that looked only at whether the State could offer a race-neutral explanation for the strike. Under the particular circumstances here, we believe that the appropriate remedy is a remand for a full Batson hearing that begins with the first stage of the Batson process. We realize that determinations of credibility and demeanor (e.g., facial expressions and the inflection and tone of voice when answering questions) may be extremely difficult on remand, which will now be more than four years after the trial. Nevertheless, a firsthand observation of demeanor is likely to be the only thing that can give “sufficient content” to Hick’s and Hunninghaus’ statements–“I think so”–when asked if they could be fair jurors. See Snyder, 552 U.S. at ___, 170 L. Ed. 2d at 189, 128 S. Ct. at 1215 (Thomas, J., dissenting, joined by Scalia, J.) (“a firsthand observation of demeanor is the only thing that could give sufficient content to Ms. Scott’s ultimate response–‘I think I could’ [citation]–to determine whether the prosecution’s concern about her willingness to impose the death penalty was well founded”). The trial court on remand might also have occasion to assess any differences in the follow-up questions and answers given by the respective jurors as compared to Hicks on the issue of their fairness as potential jurors. Defendant urges that we remand only for a stage three Batson hearing because the first stage became moot once the trial court asked the prosecutor to State the reason for his challenge. But this argument must be rejected. Defendant bases his claim on the rule expressed by the Supreme Court in Hernandez: “Once a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether the defendant had made a prima facie showing becomes moot.” (Emphasis added.) Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359, 114 L. Ed. 2d at 405, 111 S. Ct. at 1866 (plurality op.). This rule does not govern the present situation, of course, because, as we have already concluded, the trial court never reached the third -16- stage of the process and therefore did not rule on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination. Accordingly, we believe that the appropriate remedy is a remand for a full Batson hearing, which begins with stage one and could potentially end there, depending on whether defendant establishes a prima facie case. Finally, we note that the Batson hearing below was conducted prior to this court’s decisions in Rivera I and II and prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Snyder and Miller-El II. Although these cases do not represent a change in the area of Batson law, they do spell out some important principles that should help guide the parties and the court on remand.