Opinion ID: 780418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Racial Bias

Text: 53 The defendants contend that this process was insufficient. Specifically, the defendants suggest that the Court failed to examine thoroughly the racial biases of particular veniremen. Moreover, they argue that the Court erred in failing to strike for cause at least one juror who they believe showed evidence of racial bias. We disagree. 54 A court is constitutionally required to inquire into potential jurors' racial prejudices if ethnic or racial issues are inextricably intertwined with conduct of the trial, or if the circumstances in the case suggest a significant likelihood that racial prejudice might infect the defendant's trial. United States v. Borders, 270 F.3d 1180, 1182 (8th Cir.2001); see Rosales-Lopez, 451 U.S. at 190, 101 S.Ct. 1629. If substantial indications of racial prejudice exist in a particular case and a trial court denies a defendant's request to examine a venireman's ability to be impartial, this inaction may be characterized as an unconstitutional abuse of discretion. Borders, 270 F.3d at 1183 (internal citation omitted). 55 Even in cases when such implications do not exist, and further inquiries are not constitutionally required, the best practice is to allow defendants to choose whether they would like an inquiry into racial or ethnic prejudice in order to avoid the appearance of injustice. Id. When examining whether a potential juror holds any racial or ethnic prejudices the questions do not have to be of a specific type, neither must the court ask any particular questions. See Bear Runner, 502 F.2d at 912. In the past, we have held that general questioning on the subject of race is sufficient. See United States v. Thompson, 490 F.2d 1218, 1222 (8th Cir.1974). However, we have also suggested that the better practice is to ask direct probing questions of individual veniremen, particularly... when the overall circumstances and surroundings suggest the possibility of racial bias. Bear Runner, 502 F.2d at 912. 56 The Court first inquired into whether any juror held any ethnic or racial prejudices that could potentially affect him or her in this case by means of the questionnaire that the Court provided to every prospective juror. 57 44. Do you believe that certain races or ethnic groups tend to be more violent than others? Yes ___ No ___ 58 If your answer is yes, please indicate which races or ethnic groups you believe to be more violent. 59 45. Have you ever had a bad experience involving a person whose race is different from yours? Yes ___ No ___ 60 If your answer is yes, please describe any such experience. 61 46. How would you feel if a family of a different race moved next door to you? 62 ___ I would favor it ___ I would be indifferent because the race of my neighbors makes no difference to me ___ I would oppose it 63 47. The defendants in this case are Black and are accused of killing a Hispanic person. Would the race or ethnicity of the defendants or victim be important to you in deciding between a life sentence and the death penalty? 64 a. Yes, victim ___ No ___ b. Yes, defendants ___ No ___ c. If yes to a or b, please explain your answer. 65 48. Do you have any feelings toward any racial or ethnic group which would cause you to judge a member of that group differently than you would judge a member of your own racial or ethnic group? Yes ___ No ___ 66 If yes, please explain. 67 Appellee's Addendum A 12-13. 68 The Court further examined the venire on this subject during general voir dire. The Court stated: 69 Ladies and gentlemen, although the defendants in this case are from the country of Colombia, they have African heritage. Some people indicated on their questionnaires that they have had difficulty with a person or persons of a different race or that they would oppose having a person of a different race as a neighbor or that they believed certain races to be more violent. Is there anyone here who expressed such a belief and because of your belief, or for any other reason, feels that you would be less likely to believe the position of a black person, or a person from Colombia, as opposed to anyone else merely because of their race or nationality? 70 Appellee's Addendum C 5. There were no responses to this question. 71 During death-penalty qualification of the potential jurors, the Court asked several individuals additional questions on the subject of racial or ethnic prejudice. The defendants argue that more questions were necessary during this individual questioning. We will not discuss every person that the defendants contend was inadequately examined, but will include certain examples to address the defendants' argument. 72 Several potential jurors responded to question number 44 of the questionnaire that they believed that certain races were more violent than others. For example, Juror number 17, Jimmie Jones, stated in his questionnaire that in his opinion intercity people, being both black and white, tend to be more violent. Tr. 115. When the Court asked if he felt that the fact that the defendants in this case are from another country, from Colombia, and the fact they're African Heritage would cause you in any way not to be impartial in this case, he responded, [o]h, I don't think so, I didn't have that knowledge at the time I filled that out and my only facts for making that statement is reading the paper, I guess, it's really not fair but that is what you read and that's what you understand. Tr. 116. When the Court asked further if he felt that the defendants' nationality or race would be a consideration for him in either determining guilt or determining punishment, he stated, I don't think so, sir. A man is a man. Id. He then stated that he would be able to listen to the evidence in this case and make a decision based solely on the evidence and the law as instructed. Id. There was no error in the Court's inquiry. This venireman stated that he would not consider race when determining guilt or punishment, and that he would make a decision based solely on the evidence presented. Any further questioning would have been superfluous. 73 Similarly, the defendants contend that juror number 69, Vicky Borland, and juror number 98, Jacqueline Betts, were not examined adequately. Ms. Borland and Ms. Betts both stated in their questionnaires that they believed that Hispanics and African Americans were more violent. However, they both stated that the race of the defendants would not affect any decision they might have to make in this case, and that they could be impartial to the defendants. Tr. 328, 450. Again, we believe further examination was not necessary. 8 In addition, the defendants used a peremptory strike to remove Ms. Borland. 74 The defendants also contend that juror number 114, William Pecota, should have been more thoroughly questioned. Mr. Pecota played baseball in Colombia for a few months nearly twenty years ago. The Court asked Mr. Pecota several questions regarding his experience in Colombia and whether this would tend to make him believe the charges against the defendants without hearing the evidence against them. Tr. 505. Mr. Pecota responded that it would not. Id. He also stated that he thought that he could make a decision in this case solely on the evidence presented. Again, we find that the Court's inquiry was sufficient to reveal any potential prejudices held by Mr. Pecota. 75 Juror number 26, Thomas Jones, and juror number 104, Mark Fricke, raise a slightly different concern. Mr. Jones responded in his questionnaire that he believed certain races were more violent, though he did not identify a particular race. When the defendants' attorneys requested further questioning from the Court, this request was denied. Mr. Fricke did not respond to the pertinent race questions on the questionnaire, and the Court also denied further questioning of Mr. Fricke. Tr. 469. Though the Court could have chosen to examine further these individuals, we do not believe that failure to do so was an abuse of discretion. The Court did ask during general voir dire whether the fact that the defendants were of African heritage would hinder the ability of each person to be impartial. Neither of these veniremen responded. More importantly, neither of these veniremen served on the jury; therefore, no actual prejudice was suffered. 76 The defendants also argue that the Court should have struck at least one juror on account of his racial bias. The defendants contend that juror number 31, Kenneth Whisler, should have been struck for cause. Mr. Whisler indicated in his questionnaire that he believed that African Americans were more violent than other races. However, he did not think that the fact that the defendants were from Colombia would impact his ability to be impartial. Tr. 162. When the Court further inquired whether the fact that the defendants have African ... heritage would in any way weigh on your decision at that part of the trial or any other, he responded, [n]o, sir. Tr. 164. We will uphold a trial court's decision whether to strike a juror for cause unless the defendants can illustrate actual prejudice. See United States v. Mills, 987 F.2d 1311, 1314 (8th Cir.1993). In the present case, not only did Mr. Whisler state that he could be impartial, he did not serve on the jury. Because the necessity of using a peremptory strike does not establish actual prejudice, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court.