Opinion ID: 2242785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Richard Craver

Text: The record reveals that Dr. McPartlin's counsel excused venireperson Craver based primarily on Craver's courtroom demeanor, i.e., the way that he looked, where he looked and how he answered some of the questions. Counsel also described an incident during voir dire in which, while counsel questioned another panel of jurors, Craver muttered something to another juror, prompting counsel to turn his attention back to Craver. Counsel described this as an embarrassing moment, and expressed his concern that he may have offended Craver. The trial court recalled this incident, stating, Well, I remember this kind of notably. I remember [Craver] like leaning over and saying something at a time when no one else was. The trial court also later recalled Craver's hesitancy in answering counsel's follow-up query during the incident. A prospective juror's courtroom demeanor may constitute a legitimate and race-neutral reason for excluding that individual. People v. Andrews, 155 Ill.2d 286, 303, 185 Ill.Dec. 499, 614 N.E.2d 1184 (1993); People v. Young, 128 Ill.2d 1, 20, 131 Ill.Dec. 78, 538 N.E.2d 453 (1989). Because such a subjective explanation for exercising a peremptory strike lends itself to pretext, such an explanation must be closely scrutinized. People v. Williams, 164 Ill.2d 1, 19, 206 Ill.Dec. 592, 645 N.E.2d 844 (1994). The record indicates that the trial judge appropriately scrutinized counsel's explanation. The trial judge's determination as to counsel's credibility is entitled to great deference. See Munson, 171 Ill.2d at 175, 215 Ill.Dec. 125, 662 N.E.2d 1265; Hudson, 157 Ill.2d at 428, 193 Ill.Dec. 128, 626 N.E.2d 161. We cannot say, therefore, that the trial judge's ruling was clearly erroneous. See Young, 128 Ill.2d at 21, 131 Ill.Dec. 78, 538 N.E.2d 453 (concluding that the trial judge's finding that the prosecutor's concern was an honest one was not clearly erroneous).