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

Heading: The Georgia courts failed to apply Batson's third step.

Text: 15 When we initially decided this case, I concurred with the result but expressed reservations about the state courts' application of Batson. See Hightower v. Schofield, 365 F.3d 1008, 1041 (2004) ( Hightower I ) (Wilson, J., concurring). As I stated in my concurrence, it appeared that the state trial court and the Georgia Supreme Court failed to properly apply Batson's third step by concluding their analysis at the end of the second step. Id. at 1042. 16 A Batson challenge requires a three-step inquiry. Rice v. Collins, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 969, 973, 163 L.Ed.2d 824 (2006). First, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has made a prima facie showing that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge on the basis of race. Second, if the showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to present a race-neutral explanation for striking the juror in question. Id. (citations omitted). The second step requires evaluating the explanation on its face — so long as the reason is not inherently discriminatory, it suffices. Id. Third, the trial court must assess the plausibility of that reason in light of all evidence with a bearing on it. Miller-El, 125 S.Ct. at 2331. This final step involves evaluating the persuasiveness of the justification' proffered by the prosecutor . . . . Rice, 126 S.Ct. at 974 (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 1771, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam)). The Georgia courts did not apply Batson's third step. 17 The trial court made explicit determinations with regard to only the first two steps. 1 The trial court asked the prosecutor, Joseph Briley, about each struck black veniremember, starting with Ricky Thomas. After Briley offered his justification, the trial court immediately stated, without asking for the defendant's input, Mr. Briley, I find that is an articulable reason the State has stated for striking Ricky Thomas and is not race related. The trial court then proceeded to ask about the next potential juror. Again after Briley's explanation, the trial court, without pausing, found that the State has stated an articulable reason for striking Lucious Boswell and the reason is not race related. The trial court and Briley repeated this sequence for each of the six struck black veniremembers. Finally, after hearing all the prosecutor's reasons, the court stated, I find that the defendants have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the part of the district attorney. I further find that as to each individual strike, the State has presented an articulable, nonrace related reason for striking the prospective juror. The trial court never made a finding that these reasons were credible and never addressed the persuasiveness of the justification[s]. Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768, 115 S.Ct. at 1771. 18 The Georgia Supreme Court also failed to reach Batson's final step. Applying a clearly erroneous standard and assuming that Hightower had established a prima facie case, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's determination that the prosecutor's reasons for striking veniremembers were race-neutral. The language used in the Georgia Supreme Court's opinion suggests that once a prosecutor has articulated reasons for his challenges, a court's finding that those reasons are race-neutral is sufficient to end the Batson inquiry. 2 The Georgia Supreme Court appears to have been evaluating not whether Hightower had met his burden of establishing purposeful discrimination, but merely whether the prosecutor's proffered reasons for the strikes were race-neutral. 19 The majority says that the trial court implicitly reached the final step. Ante, 1072 n. 9. I disagree. Implicit findings must be reasonable in light of the record evidence. United States v. $242,484.00, 389 F.3d 1149, 1154-55. The majority does not evaluate the record to determine whether its implicit findings are reasonable. As I explain below, the record fails to support a finding that the prosecutor's reasons were credible. 20 The conclusion here is inescapable: By rejecting Hightower's Batson claim merely because the prosecutor's justifications were articulable and nonrace related, the Georgia courts' adjudication resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, Batson. 3 § 2254(d)(1).