Opinion ID: 2823792
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Dismissal of Ms. A.

Text: Â¶17Â Â Â Â Â Â The trial court also denied Rodriguezâs Batson challenge to the dismissal of Ms. A., although the grounds for its decision are unclear. At step one, Rodriguez pointed out that Ms. A. is Hispanic and that some testimony might be racially divisive because one victim used a racial slur. Cf. Valdez, 966 P.2d at 596 (holding that a prosecutorâs references to the O.J. Simpson trial, âcombined with his pattern of peremptory strikes, establish[ed] a prima facie caseâ). At step two, the prosecutor explained that her juror questionnaire suggested an inability to be fair. However, the trial court did not make any findings as to either the legal sufficiency of Rodriguezâs prima facie case at step one or the facial validity of the prosecutorâs race-neutral reason at step two. Nor did the trial court determine, at step three, whether the prosecutorâs explanation was believable or pretextual. See, e.g., Snyder, 552 U.S. at 484â85.Â Â¶18Â Â Â Â Â Â Instead, the trial court concluded the bench conference by stating, âThat will probably sustain on appeal. If it doesnât, then itâs probably my fault. But weâre developing a pattern that Iâm starting to see. So I donât expect to have a Hispanic name on the next one.â This statement shows that the court remained preoccupied with the search for a pattern of discrimination; though, as discussed above, a pattern is neither the starting point nor the ending point for a finding of purposeful discrimination under Batson. Rather, the goal is to discern the prosecutorâs intent, as evidenced by his demeanor. See id. at 477. Especially at step three, the trial courtâs firsthand observations are crucial: it âmust evaluate not only whether the prosecutorâs demeanor belies a discriminatory intent, but also whether the [prospective] jurorâs demeanor can credibly be said to have exhibited the basis for the strike attributed to the [prospective] juror by the prosecutor.â Id. In this case, the trial court was also best situated to ascertain why the prosecutor never asked Ms. A. about the questionnaire response that he used to justify striking her from the jury panel. 7 Absent the resolution of these factual issues, it is impossible for a reviewing court to tell whether the prosecutor struck Ms. A. because of her race.