Opinion ID: 1521383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: alleged discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges

Text: The Commonwealth's Attorney exercised five of his peremptory challenges to excuse five of the seven black prospective jurors. The appellant excused one of the black prospective jurors, and one black person remained on the jury panel. After the peremptories were exercised, 14 prospective jurors remained to provide a jury of 12 with 2 alternates. The following colloquy then took place: THE COURT: Is the Commonwealth satisfied with the jury? MR. DUNCAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is the Defendant satisfied with the jury? MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Would you please swear the jury? JUROR JOHNSON: May I approach the bench? THE COURT: Yes, sir. (Discussion at the bench in whispered tones.) JUROR JOHNSON: If possible my company would prefer that I didn't, if the trial lasted a long time, didn't serve. THE COURT: Well, I appreciate what your company would prefer, but at this point it is beyond my capability. JUROR JOHNSON: Okay. THE COURT: All right, sir. (Continuing in Open Court) (Jury sworn to try the case.) THE COURT: Those other members of the panel that were not selected to serve as a jury in this matter, I want to thank you for your assistance. Without your assistance we would not have been able to pick a jury. I know it's been a somewhat trying experience for you and I appreciate the patience that you've shown throughout the process of jury selection. Again, I thank you on behalf of the court system for your assistance in helping us select a jury for this case. At this time you're excused from this court. (Prospective jurors not seated left the courtroom.) THE COURT: Mr. Duncan, would you come up, please, sir? MR. DUNCAN: Yes. (Discussion at the bench in whispered tones.) MR. TAYLOR: At this time I want to object to the pre-emptories (sic) as exercised by the Commonwealth on the basis of racial exclusion, my client being a black person and the margin of blacks pre-emptorily (sic) struck by the Commonwealth, and move the Court to mistry the case and reassign for trial. THE COURT: Motion is denied. We note that appellant's objection to the use of peremptory challenges to jurors was not made until after the appellant had accepted the jury, and stated to the court that he was satisfied with the jury. It was not made until after the prospective jurors who were not accepted on the panel had been discharged from service by the court and had left the courtroom. The objection was not made until after the jury had been sworn. The relief requested was not that the alleged discriminatory challenges be disallowed, but rather a mistrial was sought with a reassignment for trial. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), requires that upon timely objection to peremptory challenges for alleged discrimination, the court shall hold a hearing to determine if a prima facie case of discrimination can be made. Batson also noted, at footnote 24, that it made no attempt in the light of the variety of jury selection procedures in various states to outline the procedure to be followed to implement the decision. In Kentucky, after challenges for cause, each party having the right to exercise peremptory challenges is furnished a list of qualified jurors equal in number to the number of jurors to be seated plus the number of the allowable peremptory challenges for all parties. Peremptory challenges are then exercised simultaneously by each party by striking names from the list and returning it to the judge. The jury is then chosen from the names that remain. RCr 9.36(2). There is nothing to prevent a party from seeing the list of strikes of the opposing party after the strikes have been made and the list returned to the judge. If there is a challenge to be made to the exercise of peremptories in this state, it should be made when the list of strikes has been returned to the judge and before the jury has been accepted by the parties and sworn to try the case and before the remainder of the jurors have been discharged from service. In this case the voir dire questioning of jurors consumed four days and is transcribed in nine volumes in the transcript on appeal. If appellant had made a timely challenge to the exercise of peremptories by the Commonwealth, the trial court could have held a hearing to determine if a prima facie case of discrimination existed, and if so, the steps set forth in Batson v. Kentucky, supra , could have been complied with without delay. If it were determined that the challenge of any juror was the result of discrimination, that challenge could have been disallowed and that juror would have remained on the panel. As it happened, no objection was made here until after appellant had stated his satisfaction with the jury, the remaining jurors were discharged and had left the courtroom, and the jury was sworn to try the case. The only relief sought was a mistrial and a continuance of the case. We do not think the Commonwealth should be subjected to such delay and additional expenses as would be caused by a new trial when the appellant could have avoided the situation entirely by making a timely motion. Batson v. Kentucky, supra , envisions that a timely motion should be made for protection under its ruling, and it has been so held in United States v. Erwin, 793 F.2d 656 (5th Cir.1986) and Swain v. State, 504 So.2d 347 (Ala.Crim.App.1986).