Opinion ID: 3015048
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts Underlying Wilson’s Claim

Text: The parties have stipulated that Wilson’s jury consisted of nine whites, two blacks, and one juror of unknown race.13 They also stipulated that McMahon used at least eight of his sixteen peremptory challenges against blacks. The District Court found that a ninth potential juror challenged by McMahon was black, although the Commonwealth challenges this conclusion on 13 Most of the transcript of Wilson’s voir dire has been lost, hence the factual record is incomplete. 22 appeal. Wilson submitted voter registration records for three more individuals he alleged were also struck by McMahon. The District Court, noting that the names were very common, refused to find that the three additional individuals struck by McMahon were those identified by Wilson. Thus, the District Court concluded that, of the sixteen people struck by McMahon, nine were black. The Commonwealth argues that the remaining individuals struck by McMahon were “non-African-American.” Wilson disputes this claim, arguing instead that they were all of unknown race. We see nothing in the record or in the District Court’s opinion supporting the Commonwealth’s claim, so we agree with Wilson that the race of the seven remaining individuals is unknown. Finally, the District Court found that McMahon noted the race and gender of eleven of the twelve jurors in Wilson’s panel. 314 F. Supp. 2d at 448. It concluded that the Commonwealth “offered no . . . legitimate rationale for Mr. McMahon's decision to make such notations,” given that Wilson’s trial predated Batson. Id. at 448.14