Opinion ID: 3015048
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Batson Step One

Text: A defendant satisfies the first step of the Batson analysis “by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” Johnson, 125 S. Ct. at 2417. Batson itself stressed the open-ended nature of the step one inquiry: In deciding whether the defendant has made the requisite showing, the trial court should consider all relevant circumstances. For example, a “pattern” of strikes against black jurors included in the particular venire might give rise to an inference of discrimination. Similarly, the prosecutor's questions and statements during voir dire 14 The District Court noted that Batson gives prosecutors an incentive to record the race of potential as well as actual jurors, as such information may “assist them in meeting their burden at Step Two.” Id. at 448 n.15. 23 examination and in exercising his challenges may support or refute an inference of discriminatory purpose. These examples are merely illustrative. We have confidence that trial judges, experienced in supervising voir dire, will be able to decide if the circumstances concerning the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges creates a prima facie case of discrimination against black jurors. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97. The District Court found that Wilson had established a prima facie Batson violation, relying primarily on McMahon’s statements in the videotape as well as what was known about McMahon’s conduct at Wilson’s jury selection. We agree. The evidence in the McMahon tape, coupled with the fact that every juror challenged peremptorily by McMahon whose race was determined by the District Court was black, provides extremely strong support for the conclusion that McMahon engaged in purposeful discrimination. There is no doubt that a judge, relying on this evidence, could easily “draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” We recently noted that, “in some circumstances, suspicious questioning, coupled with strikes that seem to implement the thrust of the questioning, may be enough” to satisfy step one. See Bronshtein v. Horn, 404 F.3d 700, 723 (3d Cir. 2005). Certainly, then, an admission by the prosecutor that he uses peremptory strikes to keep certain categories of AfricanAmericans from serving, coupled with a limited record showing that he used many of his strikes on African-Americans in the case at issue, is sufficient. We therefore conclude that Wilson carried his burden under step one of Batson.15 15 McMahon’s own testimony at the evidentiary hearing further supports this conclusion. As the District Court found, McMahon was equivocal as to whether race was ever a factor in his decision-making: The Court: Did race ever play a factor in your determining who to challenge and who not to 24