Opinion ID: 2120964
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the 1982 jury selection

Text: In the 1982 selection of defendant's jury, the State exercised 11 peremptory challenges, five of which were used to exclude all those venire members called for voir dire who were black and not otherwise excluded. (A sixth black member was excused for cause.) While hearing defendant's first motion for a mistrial based on allegedly systematic exclusion of black venire members, the trial judge permitted the State to offer explanations in camera for its earlier peremptory challenges of such members, stating that he was doing so just for the sake of the record and adding his observation that [a] couple of them were out and out bums, to say the least. In explaining his latter comment, the trial judge stated that one was unemployed and never really worked anywhere, that he did not believe anybody in his right mind would have taken that juror, but that the State could give the reasons for what it's worth. The State thereupon offered explanations for the peremptory challenges at issue, and the trial judge implicitly denied the mistrial motion.
At this point in the trial, four black venire members had already been peremptorily challenged by the State.
Gay. The first such member was Gayle Gay, who was a 24-year-old telephone operator with 2½ years' tenure and was married to a Navy airman with six years' service. She had lived in the same neighborhood for more than six years, had no children, was well dressed, belonged to the Brethren faith, and did not attend church regularly. She had been the victim of a burglary for which no arrest had been made. With regard to the burglary, the following exchange occurred during her voir dire : Q. Is there anything about that that you feel would affect your ability to give both sides a fair trial? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. Is there any reason why I Q. The fact you have been burglarized, would that affect your ability to give both sides a fair trial? A. Oh, no. Franklin. The second such venire member was Kenneth Franklin, who was 21 years old, had lived at his current address for 20 years, was single and unemployed, and was living with his unemployed mother. He had once worked at a restaurant for nine months. Buckley. The third such venire member was Roger Buckley, who had never been married, was living with his parents, and was employed as a supervisor at a State medical center where he had worked for 5½ years. He had custody of his eight-year-old daughter, whose mother lived separately and was receiving public assistance. Before his current employment, he had worked for two years as a clerk. Buckley's brother was a drug abuse counselor and a former police officer. Buckley had once witnessed a burglary to his father's car, had testified in court, and was satisfied with the results of the case. He was a Baptist and did not attend church regularly. Bartlett. The fourth such venire member was Louise Bartlett, who was separated from her husband and had lived at her current address for 36 years. She had been employed for three years as a wrapper in a factory. Her husband had worked in a paint factory when they lived together. She had six adult children, who ranged in age from 19 to 36 years and included a single housewife, a single car-wash worker, a teacher in a public school, a married firefighter, a single city government office clerk, and a business administration student. The car of one of her sons had once been burglarized, for which no one had been arrested. When first asked whether she belonged to any clubs or organizations, she replied, The Defenders, but when later asked again, she replied, No. She was a Baptist and attended church regularly. The transcript suggests that her interrogator had some difficulty in hearing her responses to questions and that on one occasion she had to be asked a question twice before giving a responsive answer.
Gay. In attempting to explain the peremptory challenge of Gayle Gay that had occurred earlier in the day, a prosecutor said, I'm trying to think who she was, Judge, and the other prosecutor said, I don't recall that individual in particular, Judge. We have excused at least ten and I don't recall everybody we have excused. The trial judge then said, The reason why I would not choose that juror, as far as I'm concerned, is, she's a young black lady about the same age as the defendant. That's why I would have excused her. Franklin. In regard to Kenneth Franklin, to whose former restaurant employment defense counsel had referred, a prosecutor remarked, Obviously, he was chasing cockroaches for a couple of months, and the other prosecutor added, That's the only job he ever had. He could hardly talk to you. Buckley. Before giving the State an opportunity to explain the peremptory challenge of Roger Buckley, the trial judge remarked, Buckley, there's no question. Later, when actually explaining their challenge to Buckley, the prosecutors recalled (erroneously) that he's some kind of counselor, [h]e works for some kind of drug abuse unit, adding that he was of defendant's age, had never been married, and had an eight-year-old child. Bartlett. As for Louise Bartlett, a prosecutor said that she reacted to Your Honor's questioning as if she had no idea of what was going on. The other prosecutor later added that [s]he could not respond to any questions you were saying. She had no idea what was going on, and that's some of the reason why, at which point the first prosecutor interjected, Some of the people simply cannot follow some of your instructions. At this point the trial judge remarked, I really don't feel so far, I haven't seen an outstanding one yet. Without explicitly addressing the mistrial motion further, the court then resumed voir dire of venire members.
Wadley. During the resumed proceedings, a fifth black venire member, Denise Wadley, was peremptorily challenged by the State. She had never been married, had lived for 17 years in the same neighborhood (16 of those years with her family), and had been working as a telephone operator for five years. Earlier, she had worked three years for an optical company and five years as a post office distribution clerk. She was a Baptist and did not attend church regularly. After Wadley was excused, defense counsel renewed their motion for a mistrial. Later, in argument on the motion after the jury had already been impaneled and sworn, a prosecutor observed that Wadley was a single lady who lived on the South Side of Chicago. Of course, the defendant lives on the South Side of Chicago, and more significantly, Judge, our concern on that, and her age and everything else. The fact she lives alone and the fact that the address. After an interruption by defense counsel, the prosecutor continued: Just this past Sunday evening, we tried to locate a witness of ours at the very same building, a witness who I believe has in fact given the Defense a statement in this case. That is a man by the name of Mr. Hardley. That witness indicated to us he would cooperate with us. He in fact stiffed us, was not there. We have no idea what he's doing in that building. If he's around, there may be contact, and in addition any possible trepidations this young lady may have. The trial judge then remarked: I cannot say they systematically excluded any black jurors, because I don't really feel, for one reason or another, that we really had substantial black jurors that, you know, that I would as a trial lawyer, accept as far as this case is concerned, and the one, basically young black juror basically about the same age as the defendant. I mean, with the exception of the one older lady, I don't know how old she was, and she had children the same age, and Louise Bartlett, but I agree with the State she wasn't the sharpest juror. I can't say they proved they systematically excluded them. Formally denying the mistrial motion, the judge added: I mean, if they started excluding black jurors who basically had worked at a job for ten or twenty years and lived in the community and so forth, maybe I would say there may be something to your motion and if I followed the cases, which I question about whether it's the law in the State of Illinois, but as the law now sits, not having done so, I can't really say, per se, that they did it.