Opinion ID: 2120964
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The State's Surrebuttal

Text: At the beginning of what may be called the State's surrebuttal argument, the prosecutor said that at the Batson hearing it was the defense's obligation to prove a prima facie case of discrimination, but that the absence of black jurors alone was insufficient proof. The State argued that its peremptory challenges were exercised against a racially mixed group of five black and six white venire members, that the defense could have used more of its peremptory challenges so that seven to eight black venire members remaining might have been reached for voir dire, and that the defense had not established a prima facie case. In addition, the State argued that it had not been obliged to follow Batson precepts when it offered its 1982 explanations for peremptory challenges; it did not then have the assistance of a voir dire transcript or even the juror information forms; and it should not be held strictly to its 1982 explanations. Finally, the State argued that, while it had articulated nonracial reasons for the peremptory challenges, the reasons were not required by Batson to rise to the level of cause for challenge, and the State had not claimed that the reasons articulated were the only reasons for the challenges. Thus, according to the prosecutor, the record should be very clear that even if someone stretching the imagination could assume that the defense in this case has presented a prima facie case, which I submit no one can, that the State in this case has not violated the mandates of Batson. At this point, the transcript reveals the following exchange: THE COURT:    I ruled of course at the trial I did not see any racial excluding here. Based upon the hearing I have here, I have not changed my mind   .       Since I ruled before, I have not changed my ruling after hearing the reasons given to me today. MR. ISAACSON: Your Honor, could your Honor make a finding of whether or not we have established a prime [ sic ] facie case? THE COURT: No, you did not. MR. ISAACSON: And one further THE COURT: Which I ruled at the time of the trial.