Opinion ID: 77440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: This case is factually on all fours with Miller-El.

Text: 27 The factual similarities between Miller-El and this case are extensive. In Miller-El, the prosecutors struck ten of the eleven qualified black veniremembers with peremptory challenges. 125 S.Ct. at 2325. Here, Briley, used six of seven peremptory strikes to strike black veniremembers. 8 In Miller-El, the prosecutor struck a black veniremember because the juror was inclined to favor rehabilitation, while non-black jurors, who expressed stronger beliefs in favor of rehabilitation, were not struck. 125 S.Ct. at 2327-29. Here, Briley struck Davis, a black veniremember, because he was somewhat opposed to the death penalty as compared to other veniremembers, but did not strike non-black veniremembers, such as Carter, Shatterly, and others mentioned above, who expressed views similar to Davis's, and in some instances expressed views more equivocal than Davis's. 28 Further, in Miller-El, the prosecutor struck from the jury black veniremembers because they had relatives who were prosecuted by the D.A.'s office. 125 S.Ct. at 2328. The Court noted the prosecutor's failure to inquire into the details of the convictions and relationships as further evidence that the reason was a pretext. Id. Here, Briley struck four black veniremembers because they allegedly had relatives who were prosecuted by the D.A.'s office. 9 Just as in Miller-El, Briley did not inquire into the details of these convictions and relationships. Briley also declined to challenge Hensler, a non-black juror who himself had been prosecuted and convicted of voluntary manslaughter. 29 In Miller-El, the prosecutor, while stating the race-neutral reasons for the strikes, mischaracterized the voir dire testimony of some of the black veniremembers he struck. 125 S.Ct. at 2327. Similarly, Briley mischaracterized the testimony of Davis. 30 This case is a more factually compelling Batson violation than Miller-El because of Briley's personal history of past discrimination. The defendant in Miller-El demonstrated little, if any, past history of discrimination by the specific prosecutors involved in his case, relying mainly on a manual that instructed prosecutors to minimize the number of black jurors. The Supreme Court stated that this evidence confirmed its conclusion that the race-neutral reasons were pretextual. 125 S.Ct. at 2339. Here, Briley himself authored a memorandum that spelled out the scheme to limit the number of blacks in the jury pool. The Hightower's counsel argued that Briley had in the past shown a bent and scheme to keep down the [] number of blacks serving on jury panels, and claimed that Briley wrote a memorandum detailing a plan to limit the number of blacks on grand juries. Instead of denying involvement with the memorandum, Briley responded to the accusations arguing that the memorandum could be viewed as an effort to improve matters. 31 Had the trial court delved into Batson's third step, this evidence alongside the other evidence would have cast grave doubt on the truthfulness of Briley's proffered reasons.