Opinion ID: 1593623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Race-based Batson Claim

Text: In Batson , the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior holding that a defendant's Equal Protection rights are violated when a prosecutor exercises a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror solely because of the juror's race. 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); see also Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 312, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880). Marking a change from its earlier decisions, the Court also concluded that a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in selection of the petit jury can be established under the facts of a defendant's case without showing a pattern of discrimination from previous trials. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712. The Supreme Court later ruled that the defendant and the stricken juror do not have to share the same race in order to establish a Batson violation. Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991). The Court's holding in Powers was based upon the fact that the juror's rights under the Equal Protection Clause are violated by being stricken from a jury because of his or her race, id. at 409, 111 S.Ct. 1364 and that a defendant has standing to assert the juror's equal protection claim, id. at 415, 111 S.Ct. 1364. A few months later, the Court extended its holdings in Batson and Powers to civil cases. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 616, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991). In doing so, the nation's highest court emphasized that [r]acial discrimination has no place in the courtroom, whether the proceeding is civil or criminal. . . . The Constitution demands nothing less. Id. at 630, 111 S.Ct. 2077 (internal citations omitted). The U.S. Supreme Court in Batson outlined a three-part analysis to assist trial courts in determining whether a peremptory challenge was exercised improperly based upon the race of a potential juror. 476 U.S. at 93-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. First, the party raising the equal protection challenge must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. Id. at 93-94, 106 S.Ct. 1712. This can be done by relying solely on the facts in the particular case at issue without showing a pattern of discrimination. Id. at 95, 106 S.Ct. 1712. Trial courts were instructed to consider all relevant circumstances in deciding whether a party has presented a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712. The Batson court noted that: 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 examination and in exercising his challenges may support or refute an inference of discriminatory purpose. These examples are merely illustrative. Id. at 97, 106 S.Ct. 1712. After the complaining party makes a prima facie showing of discrimination, the burden shifts to the opposing party to offer a neutral explanation for challenging the jurors. Id. The reasons given need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause, the Supreme Court stated. Id. In fact, [t]he second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-68, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995). Rather, the trial court is instructed to look at the facial validity of the reason given for challenging the juror. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral. Id. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769 (quoting Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360, 111 S.Ct. 1859). Thus, a prosecutor's assertion that he struck a juror because the juror had long, unkempt hair, a mustache, and a goatee was deemed a race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge. Id. at 769, 115 S.Ct. 1769. However, a lawyer cannot rebut the complaining party's prima facie case of discrimination by denying a discriminatory motive or affirming the lawyer's good faith. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. The Supreme Court stated that the opposing party must articulate a neutral explanation related to the particular case being tried. Id. That explanation must be a `clear and reasonably specific' explanation of [the lawyer's] `legitimate reasons' for exercising the challenges. Id. at 98 n. 20, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (quoting Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 258, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)). In the final step of the Supreme Court's Batson analysis, the trial court must then decide if the complaining party has established purposeful discrimination. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. As we have noted, a trial court may not simply accept a gender-neutral reason at face value; instead, it is the trial court's responsibility to examine the lawyer's justification for the challenges in context to ensure that the reason is not merely pre-textual. Hugueley, 185 S.W.3d at 368 (citing Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005)); see also Woodson, 916 S.W.2d at 904. As we have noted previously, the trial court should make a thorough record of the proceedings and its findings regarding the challenged juror(s) at each stage of the Batson analysis: The trial judge must carefully articulate specific reasons for each finding on the record, i.e., whether a prima facie case has been established; whether a neutral explanation has been given; and whether the totality of the circumstances support a finding of purposeful discrimination. The trial court's factual findings are imperative in this context. On appeal, the trial court's findings are to be accorded great deference and not set aside unless clearly erroneous. See In re A.D.E., 880 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. App.1994). Thus, specificity in the findings is crucial. Woodson, 916 S.W.2d at 906. In the case at bar, twenty-nine members of the venire were called for questioning during voir dire. [2] Of these twenty-nine potential jurors, seven were excused by the trial court for cause, leaving ten women and twelve men. The record does not indicate the racial or gender composition of the entire venire, nor the total number of venirepersons called for jury duty in this trial. The Plaintiff was entitled to four peremptory challenges, while the Defendants had eight peremptory challenges. Tenn.Code Ann. § 22-3-105 (1994). On the first round of peremptory challenges, the Defendants struck four womenMs. McIntosh, Ms. McKinney, Ms. Bryant, and Ms. Craig. Of those, the record indicates that Ms. Craig was African-American. [3] During the second round, the Defendants struck two more women, one of whom, Ms. Frazier, was African-American. At this time, the Plaintiff's counsel apparently lodged a Batson objection, which was not acted upon by the trial court. [4] During the third round of peremptory challenges, the Plaintiff struck one member of the venire. After both parties tendered their fourth round of challenges but before the trial court announced the dismissal of those challenged jurors, the Plaintiff's counsel renewed his earlier objection to the Defendants' exclusion of African-American jurors. The following discussion was held between the trial court and counsel at the bench but outside the hearing of the venire: Plaintiff's Counsel: Your Honor, I've got one other concern. I issued a Batson challenge on the last round. It appears The Court: I'm sorry. You sure did. Plaintiff's Counsel: I would like the defendants to state some type of basis for their exclusion of the only two female African-Americans we've had on the jury pool today. The jury pool, which I would suggest to the Court, at the maximum 11 African-Americans in the jury pool of Tipton County. And I would challenge the defendants at this point to give a race-neutral basis for their systematic exclusion of the female African-Americans. Defense Counsel: I'd be happy to, Your Honor. As far as Ms. Frazier was concerned, I believe she was the one that had the difficulty remembering what kind ofwhat she decided on a previous jury case in a civil action. That causes me some concern, plus the fact that she had some family history with cancer. As far as Ms. Sneed, I was watching, and every single person that sat there and nodded their head the entire time that Plaintiff's Counsel: Is this Ms. Craig? Defense Counsel: Ms. Sneed is now open. Plaintiff's Counsel: Did you just strike her? Defense Counsel: Yes. [5] Plaintiff's Counsel: Your Honor, I renew my objection. Defense Counsel: As far as Ms. Sneed, Your Honor, she was one of the people that I noticed was nodding her head all throughout the portion of [the Plaintiff's counsel's] examination. I've got other people like Ms. McIntosh nodding head. Ms. Craig, also Ms. Bryant nodding head. Your Honor, that's the reason why. Plaintiff's Counsel: Just for the record, I would like to say I didn't know he had included Ms. Sneed. I would say out of the three African-American females that have been seated on this jury, this defendant has systematically excluded African-American females from the jury pool of a jury pool that consisted of a maximum of 11 African-Americans to begin with. He systematically excluded or struck each African-American in the jury, or potential jurors, with no race-neutral basis, and it's basically nothing more than an attempt to select an all-white jury to try this case. Defense Counsel: First of all, Your Honor, I take personal offense about the allegation of systematic elimination of African-Americans. I've never been accused of that ever before in my professional career. But to get to the meat of the matter, I've had justification for each and every one of my strikes. If your honor, in order to clear the record, wants us to withdraw our objection as to Ms. Sneed, I'm happy to do that since that's primarily based on the head nodding, which I have, just frankly, struck everybody that did that. The Court: The Court will accept that as a race-neutral reason. If you still want to use that strike, you can. Plaintiff's Counsel: My co-counsel says stay with it. Because the Defendants explained their reasons for the peremptory challenges without prompting by the trial court, the trial court did not make a determination that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, nor was such a ruling necessary under the circumstances. See Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359, 111 S.Ct. 1859 (quoting United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983)) (Where the defendant has done everything that would be required of him if the plaintiff had properly made out a prima facie case, whether the plaintiff really did so is no longer relevant.). Therefore, we will proceed to a review of the second and third steps of the Batson analysis, where the burden shifts to the challenging party to provide a nondiscriminatory reason for its strikes and then the trial court must determine whether the opponent of the strikes has proved a discriminatory motive. Regarding Ms. Frazier, the Defendants stated that they struck her from the jury pool because she could not remember what the verdict had been when she was a juror in a previous civil case. The Defendants also stated that Ms. Frazier had some family history with cancer, which contributed to their decision to peremptorily challenge her. The Defendants' questioning of Ms. Frazier regarding her jury service follows: Defense Counsel: Okay. Now, just so you will knowby the way, jury experience, have y'all had previous jury experience? Raise your hand if you have. The Jurors: (Showing of hands.) Defense Counsel: Yes, ma'am. Did you serve as a juror in criminal or a civil case? Ms. Frazier: Both. Defense Counsel: Both? Ms. Frazier: Uh-huh. Defense Counsel: And in the civil case, so you're familiar with this difference in the burden of proof then? Ms. Frazier: (Nods head affirmatively.) Defense Counsel: In the civil case, do you remember if you found for the plaintiff or the defendant? Ms. Frazier: It's been a while. Defense Counsel: Okay. What kind of case? Was it a car wreck case? Ms. Frazier: A car wreckwell, yeah, it was a car wreck. Defense Counsel: Okay. Somebody else raised their hand. Yes, sir. The Defendants failed to ask a non-African-American venireperson who had formerly been a juror in a civil case what the verdict in that case had been; thus, we question whether a potential juror's lack of memory about prior jury service was in fact an important consideration for the Defendants. In State v. McFadden, 191 S.W.3d 648, 653 (Mo.2006), a prosecutor justified the peremptory challenge of a venireperson because the potential juror lived in a high-crime area but had never heard gunshots. The Missouri Supreme Court found this reason to be pretextual: [The juror's] recognition of a gunshot is irrelevant. Not only was the witnesses' recognition of a gunshot was [sic] 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. Id. at 653-54 (quoting Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 246, 125 S.Ct. 2317). The Defendants' failure to question another juror who had also served on a civil jury about the verdict in that case indicates that the first reason for excusing Ms. Frazier may have been pretextual. See Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 241, 125 S.Ct. 2317 (If a prosecutor's proferred reason for striking a black panelist applies just as well to an otherwise-similar nonblack who is permitted to serve, that is evidence tending to prove purposeful discrimination to be considered at Batson 's third step.). Furthermore, as in McFadden, the Defendants did not explain how Ms. Frazier's lack of memory regarding the outcome of a previous jury case was relevant to her participation as a juror in this trial. See United States v. Jenkins, 52 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir.1995) (Pretext can also be based on a finding that the factors used to explain the strike are irrelevant to a person's ability to perform as a juror in the particular case.). The Defendants' first reason for striking Ms. Frazier from the venire does not appear to be related to the particular case being tried, as required by Batson , and thus appears to be pretextual. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712; Jenkins, 52 F.3d at 747. More importantly, however, we find that the Defendants' second reason for excusing Ms. Fraziera family history of canceris not supported by the record. Although several members of the venire did acknowledge having friends or relatives affected by cancer, the record reflects that Ms. Frazier was not one of them. This incorrect reason for exercising a peremptory challenge concerns us as we evaluate the Defendants' motives in striking Ms. Frazier from the venire. See George v. State, 263 Ga.App. 541, 588 S.E.2d 312, 316 (2003) (Given that the evidence completely contradicts the prosecutor's characterization of the juror's job history as unstable, we can conclude only that this race-neutral reason is so implausible and fantastic as to render the explanation pretextual.). In addition, the repeated use of vague, mistaken, and inconsistent explanations suggests that the State's reasons are pretextual. People v. Blackwell, 171 Ill.2d 338, 216 Ill.Dec. 524, 665 N.E.2d 782, 788 (1996) (citing People v. Hope, 147 Ill.2d 315, 168 Ill.Dec. 103, 589 N.E.2d 503 (1992)). Because the Defendants' reasons for excusing Ms. Frazier appear to be inconsistent and based on incorrect information, we hold that the trial court erred in finding that the Defendants gave a legitimate race-neutral reason for peremptorily challenging Ms. Frazier. A Batson violation can be based on the improper challenge of even one juror. See, e.g., J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 142 n. 13, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994) (The exclusion of even one juror for impermissible reasons harms that juror and undermines public confidence in the fairness of the system.). Therefore, we need not consider whether the Defendants' reason for excusing the other two African-American members of the venire satisfies the requirements of Batson .