Opinion ID: 864434
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Elimination of African-American Jurors

Text: ¶5. Rosenthall argues that the State's systematic exclusion of African-Americans due to their opposition to capital punishment denied him of his rights to due process and equal protection. Rosenthall claims that the challenges for cause on the basis of anti-death penalty views resulted in exclusion of AfricanAmericans from the jury. He does not complain about the exclusion of any particular juror, only making a general objection to all of the jurors excused for cause on this basis. After careful review of the record and Rosenthall’s arguments, it appears as though Rosenthall is making a Batson1 challenge, although it is not expressly stated. A proper Batson challenge requires that when prosecutors exercise peremptory challenges against members of a distinct racial group, the State must advance articulable and racially neutral reasons for doing so. Griffin v. State, 610 So.2d 354, 356 (Miss. 1992). The record reflects that during the trial neither Rosenthall, nor the State nor the trial court recognized this issue as a Batson challenge. No objection was made to the jury selection process. Therefore, the State was not given the opportunity to advance reasons as to why specific veniremen were excused. This claim was not raised at 1 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). 3 trial; therefore it is barred upon appeal. Williams v. State, 684 So.2d 1179, 1203 (Miss. 1996). ¶6. After the selection of the jury, Rosenthall moved for a mistrial. Rosenthall alleged he was being denied a jury of his peers by the striking of jurors who had an opinion against the death penalty inasmuch as those jurors were mostly African-American jurors. The record reveals that of the twenty-three veniremen who were excused, eighteen were African-American. The test for determining whether a prospective juror’s views on the death penalty justify removal is whether the trial court finds that “the juror’s views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Manning v. State, 735 So.2d 323, 335 (Miss. 1999). There were veniremen who stated that they were opposed to the imposition of the death penalty and who further stated they would not be able to disregard their religious beliefs. The trial court offered consideration regarding the jury and stated: The Court finds that this jury panel was drawn in accordance with the law by random selection by computer with all parties present. No objection was made to the selection process of the jury. The Court finds that the makeup of the jury has considerable members of each race and each gender on the panel. Some of the people that we have just been over were excused for reasons other than their position on the death penalty, so the figure of eighteen with four of them white does not accurately reflect why some of them have been excused. In any event, the questions were asked consistent with what the law requires in relation to the death penalty. They have been excluded because of their answers and not because of anything in relation to race one way or another. And therefore, the Motion is overruled.” This Court agrees with the trial court’s rationale. Rosenthall has not demonstrated any prejudice in the jury selection. This issue is without merit. b. Independent Jury for Question of Guilt and Sentencing ¶7. Rosenthall contends that the manner in which death cases are tried should be fundamentally changed. He suggests that one jury should be empaneled to try the question of the accused’s guilt upon 4 an indictment for capital murder and that another jury should be empaneled to determine the appropriate sentence. ¶8. The sentence of death was not imposed upon Rosenthall. The verdict rendered in the case at bar was a life sentence. This life sentence bars any imposition of the death sentence upon retrial. Because Rosenthall did not receive the death penalty, his assignment of error is irrelevant and thus will not be considered. See Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 192 (Miss. 2001). This assignment of error is without merit.