Opinion ID: 2274302
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenged Strikes

Text: Johnson maintains that the State's strikes of venirepersons Murphy and Gilbert were pretextual. He also complains that the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenges before giving him a chance to demonstrate pretext. The following exchange took place after the prosecutor's peremptory strikes: [Defense Counsel]: We'll make a Batson motion as to two jurors. The first one is . . . [Murphy], who is an African-American male. We would ask the State to state their reason for that strike. . . . . [Prosecutor]: Regarding [Murphy] . . . he is single, not married, with no children. As we know this case involves the death of a very young child and so I looked for jurors, among other things, who have children. He's also a youth specialist so he has some contact with kids working for the Division of Young Services for a number of years, if not an actual social worker or towards social work, works with troubled kids. My concern, he might see himself in the position to save the defendant or could identify with one of the kids he works with and treats for the past three years. [Court]: I think that's a viable reason to deny the Batson challenge. [Defense Counsel]: The other one is to both gender and race as to . . . Gilbert, who appears to be an Asian female. . . . . [Prosecutor]: Also Mrs. Gilbert, though a married woman, indicates she has no minor children. She is a student, she lists her occupation as a student, and I'm trying to figure out how to be polite, she doesn't look to be the typical student age range, which leads me to believe she may be a professional student. Students tend not to have the sort of life experiences I think would be important life experiences you would have with kids and life experiences being something other than a student. [Court]: All right. I'll overrule the Batson challenge. [Defense Counsel]: If you could make a record, the State indicated the State struck the juror because she didn't have children? Did you say that was the reason for Gilbert? [Prosecutor]: Yeah, one of the reasons. There's no single reason for anybody, but that's mainly one of the considerations in both selecting and striking jurors with minor children. [Defense Counsel]: Juror . . . Travers, white male, also has no children. The State did not use any peremptory challenges for him. Also, juror . . . Maloney, whi[t]e male, who has no children, the State did not exercise any challenges for him. [Prosecutor]: Both Travers and Maloney, the reasons I struck the others, it's not just for people with children, that's not the sole consideration. They also had responses, at least by mannerism, certainly would appear to be favoring the State's position. [Defense Counsel]: I'm pointing out those jurors that are similarly situated, they don't have children. I think that's part of the record we need to make. [Prosecutor]: They are not just students, they don't work for the Division of Youth Services. While they didn't have children, they also don't have some of the other matters that I thought were important in consideration of striking the others. The discussion of the strikes of Murphy and Gilbert then ended without any further comment from the trial court.