Opinion ID: 1439532
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Venireperson W.S.

Text: The State stated the following four reasons for striking African-American venireperson W.S.: (1) he seemed to be agitated and confused about his role as a juror, (2) although he lived very close to the area of the crime, he stated he was not familiar with it, (3) he did not want to share details about his nephews' work in law enforcement with the rest of the panel, and (4) he appeared to be sleeping during voir dire. First, the State argues that it struck W.S. because he seemed to be agitated and confused about his role as a juror. The State's allegation appears to be based on the following exchange: VENIREPERSON W.S.: You got aggravation and what do they get, the crime attorney, the defense attorneys, they got an eye witness. How do that work? It's up the jury or who are you going to believe? MR. BISHOP: Right. VENIREPERSON W.S.: You said only one eye witness. MR. BISHOP: I'm sorry. VENIREPERSON W.S.: What if there is more than one eye witness? You got one, she got one. How do that work? MR. BISHOP: I guess I'll ask you. If you are selected as a juror, you have to determine the credibility of the witnesses. That's your job. Can you make that decision? If there are witnesses with competing stories, can you make the decision of who is telling the truth and who is lying? VENIREPERSON W.S.: Yes. While W.S. may have been initially confused about his role as a juror, this confusion seems to have been alleviated by counsel's explanations. There is no indication that W.S.'s confusion would have impaired his ability to serve as a juror. Second, the State asserts that it struck W.S. because, although he lived very close to the area of the crime, he stated he was not familiar with it. Although, W.S.'s zip code indicates he lived in Jennings, which is near the area of the crime, the State faults him for not responding that he was familiar with the area. Even if it were established that W.S. was familiar with the area of the crime, the State did not strike five white jurors who responded affirmatively that they were familiar with the area. For example, E.D. stated that she lived in Jennings for over thirty years and frequently shopped in the area of the crime. The State removed W.S. on the mere possibility that he was familiar with the area, yet left E.D. and four other white jurors who definitely were familiar with it. Third, the State asserts that it struck W.S. because he did not want to share details about his nephews' work in law enforcement with the rest of the panel. When defense counsel asked the panel if anyone had relatives in law enforcement, W.S. responded that he had three nephews in law enforcement. He then asked to approach the bench where the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: [W.S.], you had indicated that you had three nephews? VENIREPERSON W.S.: Three nephews. One is a police officer. One is in Denver, Colorado, and one Washington, D.C., F.B.I. Agent. We don't discuss their affairs. I don't want to get into that. THE COURT: Is there anything about your nephews being involved in law enforcement that would affect your ability to be a fair juror in this case? VENIREPERSON W.S.: No, I'm fair and open minded. I am just concerned about their safety. MS. TURLINGTON: You don't want to disclose their location? VENIREPERSON W.S.: Yes. THE COURT: It won't affect your ability to listen to police testimony. You can listen to that fairly and impartially? VENIREPERSON W.S.: Yes, I can. While W.S. had high concern for his nephews' safety, his attitude toward law enforcement appears to be generally positive. Such an attitude is usually favorable to the State's position. Fourth, the State contends that it struck W.S. because he appeared to be sleeping during voir dire, which is usually a valid reason to exercise a peremptory strike. [23] However, the existence of a valid justification will not preclude this Court from recognizing a Batson violation when examining the facts of the case in a larger context. [24]