Opinion ID: 1778765
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: James Graves

Text: ś 116. The prosecutor's reason for striking this juror was stated into the record. BY MR. ALLGOOD: ... S-3 was to Mr. Graves. He was a black male. Mr. Graves is wearing gold chains; he is wearing a ring in his ear; he has, uh, shades, sun shades, sun glasses, hung in hisâ in his shirt or he has all during voir dire. Mr. Graves reads some very liberal publications, uh, which are the type of publications which have lately been carrying a lot of articles on the O.J. Simpson trial espousing O.J. Simpson's innocence, and based on all those factors, your Honor, I did not deem him a good State's juror in the instant case. BY THE COURT: My list doesn't show he has an occupation. What do ya'll's list show; does he show any? BY MR. ALLGOOD: He has no occupation, your Honor. That would be another factor ... ś 117. First, Manning is procedurally barred from asserting this claim under Blue, supra, for failure to rebut the prosecutor's reason for the strike as pretextual. ś 118. Additionally, we find that the prosecutor's reasons for striking this juror were in fact race-neutral and not pretextual. This Court has said that demeanor may constitute a racially-neutral reason. Graves's wearing of gold chains, shades, and an earring are demonstrative of his demeanor, and this was a legitimate reason to strike him. See Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1346, 1351-52 (Miss.1987)(venire member struck for wearing hat in courtroom held race-neutral); Bradley v. State, 562 So.2d 1276, 1283 (Miss.1990)(juror excused for wearing overalls and black T-shirt held race-neutral). ś 119. In Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228, 1242 (Miss.1995), this Court reiterated the Batson holding that `the prosecutor's explanation need not rise to the level of justifying exercise of a challenge for cause.' Davis, 660 So.2d at 1242(quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. 1712). The United States Supreme Court pointed out in Batson that `[t]here are any number of bases' on which a prosecutor reasonably may believe that it is desirable to strike a juror who is not excusable for cause ... however, the prosecutor must give a `clear and reasonably specific' explanation of his `legitimate reasons' for exercising the challenges. Davis, 660 So.2d at 1242 (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712.) ś 120. We do not find any reversible error in the striking of this juror. There were sufficient race neutral reasons given by the prosecutor for this strike. Furthermore, this claim for error is procedurally barred. Blue, supra .