Opinion ID: 1439532
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Venireperson V.G.

Text: The State gave six reasons for striking African-American venireperson V.G.: (1) she was elderly, opinionated, and hard-headed, (2) she denied that she lived in a high-crime area, (3) she had an ulcer on her leg, (4) she may have read about the case, (5) she was familiar with the area of the crime, and (6) her sister lived in the area of the crime and was the victim of arson. Each of these reasons either equally applied to white jurors who were not struck by the State. First, the State alleged it struck V.G. because [s]he's elderly, very opinionated, corrected both myself and defense counsel about questions . . . . She seems very hard-headed and opinionated and may not be good in discussing and considering views of other jurors. However, as Judge Teitelman recognized, strikes based on vague references to attributes like demeanor are largely irrelevant to one's ability to serve as a juror and expose venirepersons to peremptory strikes for no real reason except for their race. [21] Accordingly, such vague references are heavily scrutinized. Second, the State offered that V.G. lives in a high crime area but denied that it is high crime. V.G. stated that she lived in an area that the City of St. Louis considered a high crime area. She did not consider it a high crime area even though she was robbed there once. However, this Court must consider whether the explanation provided by the State was related to the case to be tried, clear and reasonably specific, and legitimate. [22] Here, it is unclear that V.G.'s assessment of her own neighborhood has any bearing whatsoever on the case at hand. Third, the prosecutor allegedly struck V.G. because she had a problem with her leg, and he did not want to run out of jurors because of an infirmity. While V.G. had an ulcer on her leg and she had planned to see the doctor the following week, she also indicated that it was doing better and healing. In addition, the State failed to strike white juror C.S. for his infirmity. C.S. was questioned at length regarding his problem with anxiety attacks. C.S. informed the court that he has taken medication to fight anxiety attacks for fifteen years, and he did not know how he would handle sequestration. If he felt a panic attack coming on, he could take extra medication, but it would not help right away and he would be unable to listen to the evidence. If the State was truly afraid of losing a jury due to infirmity, C.S. appears to have been a stronger candidate for the use of the State's peremptory strike. Fourth, the State expressed concern that V.G. had read about the case, yet failed to strike a similarly situated white juror. V.G. indicated that she might have read about the case in the newspaper, because she reads the paper daily. However, V.G. indicated that if she had read about the case, she did not remember any of the details. She indicated that if she recalled something during the course of the trial, she knew she could set it aside, and nothing she read would keep her from being fair and impartial. Although white juror R.K. could not recall details, he was more certain that he had read about the case in the newspaper. Fifth, the State removed V.G. due to her familiarity with the area of the crime. As previously examined, this reason equally applied to five white jurors who were not struck by the State. Finally, the State commented that V.G.'s sister resided in the area of the crime and was an arson victim. However, the State alleged in this case that McFadden had terrorized the area and if the jurors cared about the people in the area, they would find McFadden guilty. Logically, a juror with a personal connection to a crime victim in the area would only strengthen the credibility of the State's argument.