Opinion ID: 848572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: a batson error is structural

Text: The lead opinion concedes that Batson errors are subject to automatic reversal, but I find it important to explain why nearly every court that has considered the issue reached the same conclusion. [5] This includes the United States Supreme Court, because Batson itself ordered an automatic reversal. Batson, supra at 100, 106 S.Ct. 1712. The Supreme Court gave this reasoning for requiring automatic reversal: [W]hen a petit jury has been selected upon improper criteria or has been exposed to prejudicial publicity, we have required reversal of the conviction because the effect of the violation cannot be ascertained. Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986). This is in line with the appropriate handling of all structural errors. The Supreme Court articulated the difference between trial error and structural error in Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991). A trial error occurs during the presentation of the case to the jury. It can be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence for the purpose of determining whether it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 307-308, 111 S.Ct. 1246. A structural error, on the other hand, affects the framework of the trial proceeding. It is more than a mere error in presenting the proofs of guilt. Id. at 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246. When a structural error occurs, a criminal trial cannot serve as a reliable vehicle for the determination of guilt. No criminal punishment could be fair if structural error existed in the framework of the trial. Id. Although no constitutional guarantee exists with regard to them, Batson errors resulting in a denial of the use of peremptory challenges must be structural. They attack the fundamental framework of the trial proceeding. They change the very makeup of the jury. And they do not occur during the presentation of evidence. Given that they do not involve evidence, they cannot be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence. This fact is a further indicator that they are not in the nature of trial errors. Id. Structural errors require automatic reversal. Id. at 309-310, 111 S.Ct. 1246; People v. Cornell, 466 Mich. 335, 363, 646 N.W.2d 127 ns. 16-17; 466 Mich. 335, 646 N.W.2d 127 (2002). Therefore, once we conclude that a Batson error existed, we must automatically reverse a conviction. Because this is exactly what the Court of Appeals did, I would affirm its decision. Automatic reversal leaves no room for error on the part of trial courts. But, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated, referring to Batson: It is true that trial courts bear a heavy burden in enforcing Batson 's anti-discrimination principle, given that the erroneous denial of a party's peremptory challenge has traditionally warranted automatic reversal. However, this concern was alleviated by a recent Supreme Court decision offering guidance to trial courts faced with deciding whether a particular peremptory challenge has a discriminatory motive. [ United States v. Annigoni, 96 F.3d 1132, 1142 (C.A.9, 1996), citing Purkett, supra at 767-768, 115 S.Ct. 1769.] The Supreme Court has carefully laid out the procedure required to satisfy Batson. We must insist that trial courts adhere to it.