Opinion ID: 1124343
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mistrial Based on the Prosecution's Use of Peremptory Challenges Against Local People

Text: On January 23, 1995, jury selection in the present case commenced. When the Prosecution exercised its seventh peremptory challenge, defense counsel argued: Your Honor, we at this point apprise the Court that we feel there may be improper dismissal of jurors based on racial bias by the prosecution. [Prosecutor] is dismissing Native Hawaiians, local people routinely. The State law is very clear in this matter.... And our position is that [Prosecutor] is targeting local people and removing them from the jury. The trial court subsequently found that six out of the seven peremptory challenges exercised by the Prosecution reflected persons of local ethnic background and eventually granted Defendant's mistrial motion. However, when the Prosecution asked the trial court for a definition of local, the court responded: Well, counsel, I think we know what we all mean by that. In its cross-appeal, the Prosecution argues that under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the defendant must first make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor is excluding members of a cognizable racial group. Only then does the burden shift to the prosecution to come forward with a race-neutral explanation for the challenges. See also Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991); State v. Levinson, 71 Haw. 492, 795 P.2d 845 (1990); State v. Batson, 71 Haw. 300, 788 P.2d 841 (1990). In the present case, the trial court found that the Prosecution was excluding persons of local ethnic background. The Prosecution argues that the term local does not refer to a cognizable racial group. Defendant, however, argues that local people are indeed a cognizable racial group in Hawai`i. [32] Whether a group is a cognizable racial group is a question of fact. Alen v. State, 596 So.2d 1083, 1085 (Fla.Ct.App.1992) (holding that the decision as to whether Hispanics are a cognizable racial group is a question of fact) (citing Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 74 S.Ct. 667, 98 L.Ed. 866 (1954)), decision approved, 616 So.2d 452 (Fla.1993). Therefore, we review this matter under the clearly erroneous standard. However, we believe that the record in the present case is not sufficiently developed for us to determine whether the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. Our review is severely impeded by the trial court's failure to define the term local people. As the Prosecution correctly suggests, the word local is extremely obscure and could mean many things. [33] Because we have no idea what the trial court meant by local people, we do not even have a starting point in conducting our analysis. Even if the trial court had provided a definition of local people, the record does not indicate what criteria the court applied in deciding cognizability. Federal courts have applied the following factors in determining the cognizability of racial or ethnic groups under Batson: (1) the group must be definable and limited by some clearly identifiable factor, (2) a common thread of attitudes, ideas or experiences must run through the group, and (3) there must exist a community of interests among the members, such that the groups interests cannot be adequately represented if the group is excluded from the jury selection process. United States v. Di Pasquale, 864 F.2d 271, 277 (3d Cir.1988) (considering whether Italian-Americans are a cognizable racial or ethnic group), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906, 109 S.Ct. 3216, 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989); United States v. Sgro, 816 F.2d 30, 33 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1063, 108 S.Ct. 1021, 98 L.Ed.2d 986 (1988). In addition, the record does not indicate what evidence the court relied upon in deciding that local people are a cognizable racial or ethnic group. Conclusory allegations are an insufficient evidentiary basis for a finding of cognizability; rather, a factual showing of the cognizability of the group is required. Di Pasquale, 864 F.2d at 276-77; Sgro, 816 F.2d at 33. Therefore, because the trial court has not provided us with an adequate record to determine whether local people are a cognizable racial or ethnic group, we express no opinion on the subject. Should this issue arise again during a possible retrial, the trial court is instructed to define what it means by local people, to conduct an evidentiary hearing on cognizability, and to make the necessary factual findings.