Opinion ID: 2219110
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Racially Motivated Exclusion of Potential Jurors

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court failed to require the State to sufficiently explain its use of three peremptory challenges of blacks in violation of Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69. Specifically, defendant argues that he established a prima facie case of three racially motivated peremptory challenges; yet, the trial court found otherwise. We note that upon review a trial court's determination that a defendant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination will not be overturned unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Evans (1988), 125 Ill.2d 50, 71, 125 Ill.Dec. 790, 530 N.E.2d 1360. Initially, the State counters that defendant has waived consideration of any potential Batson issue by failing to create a record of the race of the prospective jurors chosen and excluded. (See People v. Sims (1987), 166 Ill.App.3d 289, 311-12, 116 Ill. Dec. 706, 519 N.E.2d 921.) Our review of the record indicates, however, that the race of at least 17 venire members was established. Furthermore, our review reveals that defense counsel attempted to create a more complete record, but the trial court disallowed counsel's attempt, stating that the record stood for itself. Accordingly, we find no waiver of the issue. To meet the first element of the Batson test for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, a defendant must show the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges to remove members of a cognizable racial group from the venire. ( Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 87.) The only question which then remains is whether considering all relevant circumstances, a prima facie case of discrimination has been established. ( Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 87-88; People v. Mahaffey (1989), 128 Ill.2d 388, 412-13, 132 Ill.Dec. 366, 539 N.E.2d 1172.) Once the defendant establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the prosecution to come forward with race-neutral reasons for striking the black venire members. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 88. Relevant circumstances a trial court may consider when determining whether a prima facie case of discrimination has been established include: a `pattern' of strikes against black jurors ( Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 88); the disproportionate use of peremptory challenges against blacks; whether the excluded blacks were a heterogeneous group sharing race as their only common characteristic; the level of black representation in the venire as compared to the jury; the race of the defendant and the victim. ( Mahaffey, 128 Ill.2d at 413, 132 Ill.Dec. 366, 539 N.E.2d 1172, citing People v. Evans (1988), 125 Ill.2d 50, 63-64, 125 Ill.Dec. 790, 530 N.E.2d 1360.) The trial court, however, must avoid arbitrarily deciding this delicate question solely from the number of blacks peremptorily challenged. Mahaffey, 128 Ill.2d at 413, 132 Ill.Dec. 366, 539 N.E.2d 1172; Evans, 125 Ill.2d at 64, 125 Ill.Dec. 790, 530 N.E.2d 1360, citing People v. Hooper (1987), 118 Ill.2d 244, 247-49, 107 Ill.Dec. 250, 506 N.E.2d 1305. The record demonstrates that two blacks were selected for the first panel of four jurors and the State had 20 peremptory challenges remaining. A third black was selected for the second panel and, at that time, the State had at the least 18 peremptory challenges remaining, having exercised three. After the State utilized its 13th, 14th, and 15th peremptories against three blacks, defense counsel objected on the basis that these persons were indistinguishable from whites accepted by the State, except for their race. At this point the State had exercised six peremptories against blacks concerning whom defense counsel conceded there was a minimal basis for challenge. It had also challenged, at the least, three nonblack persons, a young female with a European surname and two persons whose race is not of record, including female implicitly identified as black. Following argument, the trial court ruled no prima facie case of discrimination under Batson had been established. In ruling, the trial court stated that it considered all of the circumstances it had had the benefit to observe, including the number of blacks accepted relative to the number of challenges remaining to the State. The trial court requested, however, that the State provide the basis for its three challenges for the benefit of the record. According to the State all three of the challenged black jurors were in their 20s, owned no property, had no long-standing positions or affiliations in the community, and were not married. The trial court then stood on its previous decision. We conclude that the trial court's finding that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court had the benefit of observing the tenor of the State's challenges, and could determine that some blacks had been accepted while the State still possessed peremptory challenges, that more had been justifiably challenged, and that a sizeable representation of nonblacks had also been challenged. Furthermore, the trial court could also determine the extent to which the three jurors in question were, in fact, similar to whites who had been accepted. We therefore decline to overturn the trial court's decision on the basis of the record as it stands.