Opinion ID: 1036479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Venire Member David Gutridge

Text: At Lee’s trial, the prosecutor stated that David Gutridge was struck because he: (1) opposed the death penalty; (2) was uncooperative in his answers to the prosecutor’s questions; and (3) had a family member convicted of a property crime. Lee I, 898 So. 2d at 813. Lee argues that the first and second reasons were false. At the outset, the state appellate court agreed that the prosecutor had mistakenly asserted that Gutridge opposed the death penalty. Id. at 815. The court remarked that a mistaken reason could support a peremptory strike so long as it was “based on an honest belief” and otherwise represented a race-neutral reason. Id. at 815–16 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court examined the record and concluded that “[t]he record does not indicate that the prosecutor’s reason was not based on an honest belief.” Id. at 816. The conclusion that an honestly mistaken but race-neutral reason for striking a black venire member did not violate Batson was not unreasonable. Concerning the prosecutor’s second reason, that Gutridge was uncooperative, the state appellate court reiterated that demeanor is a race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory strike and that Lee at trial “did not dispute the prosecutor’s assertions about the demeanor” of Gutridge. Id. The trial record supports that fact. Additionally we note, as the voir dire transcript shows, that Gutridge did not raise his hand to answer either of the prosecutor’s questions about 117 Case: 12-14421 Date Filed: 08/01/2013 Page: 118 of 128 whether panel members could impose the death penalty, and only after being singled out did Gutridge answer specifically whether he could impose it. The third reason the prosecutor struck Gutridge was because he had a “[f]amily member involved and convicted of a property crime.” During voir dire, the prosecutor asked if any venire member or a family member had been arrested and charged with a property crime. Gutridge was one of the prospective jurors who raised his hand to this question. The record thus supports this reason too. Lee also compares Gutridge with a white venire member, Edwin Ember, who answered the same question about a property crime in the affirmative but was not struck by the State. Notably, Ember did not sit on Lee’s jury. The state appellate court examined the record and found that Lee’s defense counsel had used his 12th peremptory strike on Ember, seven strikes before the State used its 19th strike on Gutridge. The court concluded that “[b]ecause the defense had long since struck veniremember [Ember] when the State struck veniremember [Gutridge], we do not find that there was any plain error in this regard.” Id. at 817. Additionally we note Ember was not similarly situated to Gutridge for yet another reason supported by the record. Ember immediately raised his hand to the question of whether he would impose the death penalty if it were the proper penalty. Ember, unlike Gutridge, was not reluctant to answer.