Opinion ID: 1133490
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Venue, Venire, And Petit Jury

Text: {83} When addressing the racial composition of groups of citizens who may be empaneled to decide a case, courts have applied different rules depending upon whether the question concerns the racial makeup of a venue, which is the particular geographical area, usually a county or judicial district, in which a court will hear and determine a case; a venire, which is the jury pool or group of citizens from whom a jury is chosen in a given case; or a petit jury, which is an ordinary jury selected from a venire, sworn to hear the evidence presented at trial and to declare a verdict of guilt or innocence. House appears to be urging that venire and petit jury principles should be applied, by analogy, to the selection of a venue. However, our research has disclosed few courts or judges that have been willing to consider such a theory.
{84} It is well established in Federal and New Mexico law that the State may not, during the jury selection process, use its peremptory challenges to exclude otherwise unbiased and well-qualified individuals solely on the basis of their race, gender, economic status, or any other similar discriminatory characteristic. J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 145-46, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994) (gender); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 409, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991) (race); State v. Gonzales, 111 N.M. 590, 597-600, 808 P.2d 40, 47-50 (Ct.App.1991) (gender); State v. Tapia, 81 N.M. 365, 366, 467 P.2d 31, 32 (Ct.App.1970) (race, economic status). Such purposeful exclusions violate the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws of both the defendant and the potential jurors. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 85-88, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); Gonzales, 111 N.M. at 595, 808 P.2d at 45 (prospective jurors). This type of discrimination is deemed to be so invidious that a defendant may establish a prima facie case of discrimination even if the defendant's racial group is not substantially underrepresented on the jury. Gonzales, 111 N.M. at 595, 808 P.2d at 45. Even a single instance of purposeful exclusion may establish a prima facie case of discriminatory intent. See id. House contends that selecting a specific venue to purposefully preclude a particular race from a petit jury is just as unconstitutional as using peremptory challenges to systematically exclude a particular race from a petit jury.
{85} As with the petit jury, the venire must be selected in an entirely neutral and nondiscriminatory manner. The Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors. Batson, 476 U.S. at 86, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (citations and footnote omitted). The State may not pass laws or promulgate rules that expressly exclude, on the basis of race, qualified individuals from the jury pool. See Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 308-09, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1879). Nor may government officials implement a neutral venire selection law in a discriminatory manner. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 241, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976) (A statute, otherwise neutral on its face, must not be applied so as invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race.). House seeks to apply these notions to adjudicating the racial composition of a venue.
{86} We have said that the State is forbidden from accomplishing indirectly at the selection of the petit jury what it has not been able to accomplish directly at the selection of the venire. State v. Aragon, 109 N.M. 197, 201, 784 P.2d 16, 20 (1989). By analogy to this principle, House argues that the State cannot indirectly accomplish, with the selection of a particular venue, the exclusion of a particular racial group, when it is prohibited from directly discriminating in the selection of the venire. {87} House is echoing Justice Marshall's dissent in Mallett v. Missouri , which concerned an African American defendant charged with murdering a white state trooper whose trial was transferred to a venue with no citizens of the defendant's race: Just as state prosecutors may not use peremptory challenges to exclude members of the defendant's race from the jury, state trial courts may not transfer venue of the trial to accomplish the same result by another means. Mallett v. Missouri, 494 U.S. 1009, 1009, 110 S.Ct. 1308, 108 L.Ed.2d 484 (1990) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (citation omitted). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in that case, and Justice Marshall's argument in favor of granting certiorari is one of the few judicial pronouncements that we have found discussing this principle. See id. at 1009-12, 110 S.Ct. 1308; see also State v. Lozano, 616 So.2d 73, 76 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1993) (reviewing trial court's decision to change venue based on the race of the victim); Osmulski v. Becze, 638 N.E.2d 828, 834-35 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (in a personal injury action, applying Batson analysis, and holding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of the discrimination in the defendant's use of the venue-change statute, and that the defendant utilized the automatic change of venue in such a manner that it resulted in changing the jury pool from one with twenty-five percent African-Americans to one with less than one percent African Americans, effectively operating as strikes against every potential African-American juror in Lake County); State v. Harris, 282 N.J.Super. 409, 660 A.2d 539, 542-45 (App. Div.1995) (concluding trial court should have considered racial demographics in selecting source from which to draw foreign jury). {88} House's argument that a particular racial group is excluded by the selection of a venue can be analyzed from two different perspectives: On the one hand, a defendant may allege that the State or the trial court deliberately selected a particular venue with the objective of excluding a racial group; the venue was chosen with discriminatory intent. On the other hand, because the move to a particular venue has resulted in the reduction or exclusion of a racial group, the defendant may claim he or she will not receive a fair trial; the venue change has had a discriminatory impact. House's arguments raise both of these possibilities.
{89} As to the first possibility, House suggests that the State deliberately sought a venue with fewer Native Americans than Taos County and thus acted with discriminatory intent. House has failed to prove this contention. The right to equal protection prevents a trial court or a prosecutor from intentionally choosing a venue so as to exclude from the venire persons of a particular race. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the State from engaging in all actions that are intentionally discriminatory on the basis of race. See Powers, 499 U.S. at 409, 111 S.Ct. 1364 (discussing the importance of race neutrality injury procedures in maintaining the integrity of the justice system). {90} As indicated above, we have found surprisingly little jurisprudence on this question. There is no generally accepted test for evaluating discriminatory intent in the selection of a venue. However, we believe that the so-called Batson test may be adapted for this purpose. The United States Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712, created, and subsequently refined, a three-part test to evaluate whether peremptory challenges were used to purposefully exclude a particular race from the petit jury. [] The Court succinctly described the test in Purkett v. Elem : Under our Batson jurisprudence, once the opponent of a peremptory challenge has made out a prima facie case of racial discrimination (step one), the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation (step two). If a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide (step three) whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam). This test can be modified to examine, in a contested change of venue, the intentions behind the State's or the trial court's choice of a particular locale. Cf. Martin v. Amoco Oil Co., 679 N.E.2d 139, 146 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997), vacated on other grounds, 698 N.E.2d 1191, and then aff'd, 696 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. 1998) (using Batson test to evaluate whether change of venue from community with 25% African-American population to community with only 1% was the equivalent of a wholesale peremptory challenge of African-Americans). {91} The application of a modified Batson test is further justified by the fact that, unlike a mandatory change of venue under Section 38-3-3, a change of venue in the trial court's discretion effectively requires the trial court to engage in a Batson -like inquiry. In other words, a trial court's findings of fact that a fair trial cannot be obtained in the current venue and that an alternate venue is free from exception necessarily determines that a change of venue is justified by race-neutral reasons, thereby satisfying step two of the Batson test. Cf. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 362-63, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (While the reason offered by the prosecutor for a peremptory strike need not rise to the level of a challenge for cause, [ Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. 1712], the fact that it corresponds to a valid for-cause challenge will demonstrate its race-neutral character.). {92} Though there was no express use of such a test by the trial court, the issue of intentional discrimination was raised below and the record contains ample evidence applicable to each step in the test. In the first step, House, as opponent of the venue change, needed to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the State's motion to select a particular venue, in this case Doņa Ana County. The opponent will rely on the facts concerning the selection of the specific venue in establishing a prima facie case. Batson, 476 U.S. at 95, 106 S.Ct. 1712. House presented a prima facie case of racial discrimination with his cultural arguments and his evidence that, after he twice had a hung jury in a community that had a significant Native American population, the State advocated the move to a venue with few Native Americans. The first part of the test is satisfied by circumstantial evidence that the prosecution proposed a venue solely on the basis of race. {93} In the second step, the State, as proponent of that venue, must present a race-neutral explanation. Throughout this case the State was accused of racism and, in arguing in favor of the move to Doņa Ana, presented several race-neutral explanations. The State's explanations included the fact that, in contrast to Taos County, Doņa Ana County had not been subjected to the frequent, pervasive, contemporaneous, and highly prejudicial publicity regarding the case. Moreover, Doņa Ana had a much larger population than the small close-knit community of Taos and would be less likely to be tainted by the prejudicial publicity. The State's justifications are `plausible' though there is no requirement that they be even minimally persuasive. See Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769 (quoting with disapproval and reversing Elem v. Purkett, 25 F.3d 679, 683 (8th Cir.1994)). This is because the ultimate determination of discriminatory intent rests with the discretion of the trial court in the third part of the test. Id. {94} In the third step, once a race-neutral explanation has been tendered, the trial court must exercise its discretion in determining whether the opponent of the venue change has proven intentional racial discrimination. The trial court in its Venue Order reiterated many of the State's arguments in enumerating those factors that rendered Doņa Ana suitable and Taos unsuitable as a venue for this trial. As our discussion of the Venue Order establishes, most of the trial court's reasons are supported by substantial evidence and show no abuse of discretion. We note that the Mallett dissent focused primarily on the discrimination of the trial court. No such discrimination has been shown here. We conclude that the selection of Doņa Ana County as a new venue was race-neutral and that there is no proof of discriminatory intent.
{95} As to the question of discriminatory impact, House argues that, in ordering the venue change, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conclude that an unfair trial was more probable because fewer Native Americans live in Doņa Ana than in Taos. We disagree. There is simply no constitutional requirement in New Mexico that, prior to a venue change, a court must consider the percentage of prospective jurors who are of the same race as the defendant. There is no outstanding precedent for requiring a trial court to consider demographic composition sua sponte every time a venue change is requested. The Equal Protection Clause does not require exactitude of this nature. Rogers v. Director, TDCJ-ID, 864 F.Supp. 584, 598 (E.D.Tex.1994). {96} Courts have overwhelmingly been unwilling to summarily conclude that the citizens in an entire geographical regionâ all the potential jurors in a county or judicial districtâ are tainted by racial prejudice. This is why the mere statistical measure of a venue's ethnic proportions cannot, by itself, lead to the presumption that a person of a given race will be unable to receive a fair trial in that venue. There may be such homogenous geographical pockets of prejudice in America, but, even in such cases, the unsuitability of a venue can only be demonstrated in the microcosm of the venire, not in the macrocosm of census figures about the venue's ethnic composition. It is, in fact, preposterousâ and a form of racismâ to presume that persons of a particular color will perform jury duty in a particular way. A person's race is utterly unrelated to his or her suitability as a juror. State v. Guzman, 119 N.M. 190, 192, 889 P.2d 225, 227 (1994); see also Thiel v. Southern Pac. Co., 328 U.S. 217, 227, 66 S.Ct. 984, 90 L.Ed. 1181 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting) (stating the color of a man's skin is unrelated to his fitness as a juror). In the selection of a jury, race may be used neither to justify a person's removal nor to compel a person's inclusion. Cf. Powers, 499 U.S. at 409, 111 S.Ct. 1364 (An individual juror does not have a right to sit on any particular petit jury, but he or she does possess the right not to be excluded from one on account of race.). {97} That is why Judge Blackmer emphasized that Doņa Ana was chosen to promote and protect BOTH Parties' RIGHT to a fair and impartial trial and a fair and impartial jury and that his decision and order selecting Doņa Ana County as Venue for retrial of this case is NOT based (in whole or in part) on any other factor or consideration (including, but not limited to, ethnic/racial considerations or racial/ethnic populations or proportions in various Counties of New Mexico. . .). Venue Order, slip op. at 19 (Finding of Fact 22). Only by conducting voir dire, and listening to the racial opinions of individual potential jurors, can it be demonstrated that a particular venue cannot provide a jury free from racial prejudice. Through careful voir dire, fair-minded jurors can most likely be found, even in a community which has few members of the defendant's race. {98} That is what happened in this case. The trial court conducted exhaustive voir dire in Doņa Ana County. After voir dire, House did not object that, because he is Native American, he would receive an unfair trial before the petit jury that was finally seated. Nor has he suggested in retrospect that it has been revealed that the jury was tainted by racial prejudice. There is simply no evidence that House received an unfair trial because Doņa Ana County has a Native American population of less than 1%. {99} Thus, in the selection of the venue of Doņa Ana County, House has shown neither that the State acted with discriminatory intent, nor that the venue change had a discriminatory impact on his fight to a fair trial.