Opinion ID: 2101509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Court Batson Proceedings

Text: In his motion for a mistrial, defense counsel asserted that the prosecution had exercised six peremptory challenges to remove African-American prospective jurors. The defense represented that there was nothing, other than race, to distinguish the venire members whom the State had excused from any of the venire members whom the State had accepted. On this basis, defense claimed that the State's use of peremptory challenges violated Batson. The State responded that of its 11 peremptory challenges, five were exercised with respect to individuals who were African-American and six were used to strike prospective jurors who were Caucasian. The State claimed that it had not engaged in a systematic exclusion of African-Americans from the jury and asserted that defendant had to prove the State had engaged in such a systematic exclusion. The State also noted that the defense excluded more African-Americans than did the prosecution. The trial court invited counsel for both defendant and the State to give reasons for their use of peremptory challenges. The defendant responded that he did not believe his own exercise of peremptory challenges was pertinent to the question of whether the State had violated Batson. Defendant also argued that the prosecution misstate[d] the standard that should be applied and that the Batson decision    goes to the exclusion of blacks because of their race, it does not matter how many are excluded in terms of the number of peremptory challenges used by the State   . In response to the trial court's inquiry, the State noted for the record the names of the African-American venire members who had been excused by the defense. The prosecutor also offered reasons for his use of a peremptory challenge to excuse one African-American venireman, Eugene Weatherall. The prosecutor did not explain his use of peremptories against any of the other African-American venirepersons excused by the State. The trial court denied defendant's Batson motion. The court noted that the defense had excused six African-Americans tendered by the prosecution, that the prosecution had excused five African-Americans, and that the defense had excused more African-American venire members than the State. The trial court also noted that at least three African-American jurors were seated on the panel. In so ruling, the trial judge observed that in the past, it had declared mistrials where it had been shown that the State ha[d] improperly excused blacks in a systematic manner. The trial judge stated that in the present case, the State had not exclude[d] blacks in any systematic manner, adding that he himself might    have done exactly the same thing with respect to the prospective jurors whom the State had peremptorily challenged. The judge further noted that the State had excused more whites than they did blacks, and you [the defense] excused more blacks than they did, and there are blacks sitting on the jury. Based upon these considerations, the trial court concluded that there had been no showing of any systematic exclusion, period and denied defendant's motion for a mistrial. The court added the following observation: [T]he fact that the Batson case came down doesn't mean that the motion has to be made in every case. I think since it does raise an issue as to the appropriateness of the conduct of the State and it calls into question the integrity of the State's Attorneys   , that it is something that should not be taken as a motion of course. This court has noted all too often that it is made as a motion of course, and I think that is inappropriate. Additional pertinent information as it appears from the statements of the trial court and counsel during voir dire is summarized as follows. During jury selection at defendant's trial, a total of 42 persons were interviewed (excluding persons whom the trial court excused for cause). Of these 42 persons, 14 were African-American (36% of the prospective jurors). With respect to these 14 African-Americans in the prospective jury pool, the State exercised 5 of its 11 peremptory challenges (45% of its peremptory challenges), and three were chosen to serve as members of the jury (21% of total jury, including alternates). The defendant challenges the State's use of its peremptories to excuse five African-American prospective jurors. With respect to the characteristics of the prospective jurors who were excluded by the State, their testimony revealed the following. Willie Smith stated that he had lived in the Austin neighborhood for the last 10 years and that he had worked for Parker Car Division for 11 years. Smith stated that his wife was a floor lady for Dentra Fair Company. Smith said that he rented his home and had two children, ages 27 and 25. Smith had never previously served on a jury. Lawrence Towns advised the court that he had lived in the Roseland community for the last 19 years and that he worked for Sears. Towns stated that his wife worked as a supervisor and that he owned his home. He said that he had served on a robbery jury two years earlier, but that this would not affect his ability to serve impartially. Towns also stated that someone broke into his house four years ago and stole his car, no one was apprehended, and the incident would not affect his ability to be fair and impartial. Lavita Bluit stated that she lived on the west side of the City of Chicago and was unemployed. She said that her hobbies were baseball, volleyball, and baby-sitting. She had never been a juror before, and stated that she could be fair and follow the law as instructed by the judge. Eugene Weatherall informed the court that he had a family member or close friend who was a police officer at the 11th District police station, but that this would not affect his ability to be fair and impartial. Weatherall also stated that his son got killed and stuck up    last year, that the case was not pending, and that the incident would not affect his ability to be fair and impartial. He said that he was an unemployed custodian and that he lived on the south side, in his own home, for over 20 years. He stated that he had six children, all of them of adult age. He advised the court that he had served on a jury in a civil trial several years ago, and that he believed he could remain fair and impartial if chosen to serve on the present jury. Silas Gilty stated that he had a cousin who was an Oak Park police officer, but that this would not affect his ability to be fair and impartial. Gilty stated that he was 24 years old, single, worked for General Electric, lived in the Austin neighborhood and rented his home. It is undisputed in this appeal that defendant is African-American. According to the record, the victims were also African-Americans. The record does not disclose the racial composition of the individuals called to testify against defendant at trial.