Opinion ID: 165371
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecution's explanations

Text: 66 We now consider whether the state court reasonably determined the facts as they relate to step two of the Batson inquiry. At step two, the prosecution must offer race-neutral explanations for the peremptory strikes. The second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible. Purkett, 514 U.S. at 767-68, 115 S.Ct. 1769. Rather, `the issue is the facial validity of the prosecutor's explanation,' so `[u]nless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral.' Id. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769 (quoting Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360, 111 S.Ct. 1859). A neutral explanation means an explanation based on something besides the race of the juror. Hidalgo v. Fagen, Inc., 206 F.3d 1013, 1019 (10th Cir.2000). 67 The Colorado Court of Appeals noted that the prosecution articulated neutral reasons for the exclusion of certain jurors.... Saiz, 923 P.2d at 206. That was not an unreasonable determination of the facts in this case. The record reveals that the prosecution offered race and/or gender-neutral explanations for the peremptory strikes of the five venire persons for whom a prima facie showing was established: Mr. Alire, Ms. Jaramillo, Ms. Baca, Ms. Eckhardt, and Ms. Ellison. The trial court actually found that the prosecution's gender-neutral explanations for the strikes of Ms. Eckhardt and Ms. Ellison were adequate. 9 Saiz does not dispute, or rebut the correctness of, the court's findings as to those two potential jurors. She also does not dispute the adequacy of the prosecution's explanations for the strikes of Mr. Alire, Ms. Jaramillo and Ms. Baca, thereby waiving an argument that the prosecution failed to satisfy step two of the Batson inquiry with respect to the five venire persons for whom the prosecution gave race- and/or gender-neutral explanations. 68