Opinion ID: 1439532
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Venireperson C.N.

Text: The State contends African-American venireperson C.N. was struck for four reasons: (1) she was an employee of the St. Louis City School District and would likely be liberal, (2) she lived in a high crime area but never heard gunshots, (3) jury service would create a hardship, and (4) she was familiar with the area of the crime. Each of these reasons either equally applied to white jurors who were not struck by the State or had no relevance to the case. First, the prosecutor claimed he struck C.N. because she was an employee of the St. Louis School District. However, in State v. Edwards , this Court rejected the notion that a juror's employment as a postal worker was sufficient reason to justify a peremptory strike. [16] This Court held that, [i]f the mere incantation of the phrase `he is a postal worker' were sufficient to overcome any showing of pretext, the third step of the Batson test would be illusory. [17] In that case, the following guidance was offered: In the future, trial courts should similarly consider strikes based on occupation carefully, assessing them for pretext by looking at whether the occupation and the claimed traits relate to the particular case or juror, whether similarly situated jurors are treated differently, and so forth, considering the factors set out above, and not allow a strike to rest solely on the claim that the juror is a postal worker. [18] The Court held that the trial court had not clearly erred in allowing the strike, because the prosecutor described his prior negative experiences with postal workers as jurors, gave specific reasons why they would not be good jurors, and struck two other jurors who had similar occupations to the challenged postal worker. [19] Here, the prosecutor failed to explain the basis for his opinion, or describe what his prior experiences entailed, or give specific reasons for why an employee of the St. Louis school system would be unfavorable for the State. Without more, C.N.'s employment with the school district is pretextual. Second, the prosecutor argued that he struck C.N. because she lived in a high crime area and had never heard gunshots. This appears to be loosely related to the case because witnesses living in high crime areas would be testifying that they heard a gunshot. However, C.N.'s recognition of a gunshot is irrelevant. Not only was the witnesses' recognition of a gunshot was not in dispute, but even if it were in dispute, it is unclear why a juror's lack of experience in hearing a gunshot is relevant. Additionally, had this issue been relevant, the State would have asked all venirepersons if they could recognize the sound of a gunshot. [T]he State's failure to engage in any meaningful voir dire examination on a subject the State alleges it is concerned about is evidence suggesting that the explanation is a sham and a pretext for discrimination. [20] Finally, the prosecutor asserts he struck C.N. because of hardship and her familiarity with the area of the crime. C.N. suggested it would be difficult for her to serve because it would be hard for her employer to replace her for a week and she was a full-time evening student approaching the end of the term. The State also claimed to have struck C.N. because of her familiarity with the area of the crime. However, as noted above, white juror S.R. also expressed hardship and, along with four other white jurors who were not struck, had a familiarity with the area of the crime.