Opinion ID: 1439532
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Venireperson M.B.

Text: The state's race-neutral reasons for striking M.B. were that: (1) she had some connection with a witness in the case; (2) she had several questions about accomplice liability that the prosecutor had not been able to resolve; (3) she was familiar with the Pine Lawn area where the murder occurred; and (4) her expectations of scientific evidence were too high. On appeal, the state now concedes that the prosecutor misspoke in offering the second reason concerning accomplice liability and that he had confused M.B. with another venireperson. Regarding the state's first reason, M.B. had indicated that she knew a relative of a potential state's witness. The majority found fault with this first reason by arguing that any bias on the part of M.B. due to her connection with the witness would favor the state. This argument is self-defeating. If M.B. could be biased in favor of any party, it follows that this bias could serve as a race-neutral non-pretextual reason for the state to strike M.B. The majority dismisses the third explanation by claiming that there were five white venirepersons who also possessed familiarity with the area of the crime [but who] were not struck from the jury. However, these persons were not similarly situated because, unlike M.B., none of them had present knowledge of the Pine Lawn area. Finally, the majority claims that the state's fourth reason is pretextual because M.B.'s high expectations concerning scientific evidence would only strengthen the credibility of the State's fingerprint evidence linking McFadden to the crime. This misses the point altogether. As the prosecutor explained, there was little scientific evidence linking appellant to the crime, and he was fearful that M.B. would expect more  that she would have unrealistic expectations about the evidence she believed the state ought to be able to produce. This is no proof of pretext.