Opinion ID: 1822334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: peremptory strikes, the batson test and its progeny

Text: ¶ 22. Wisconsin has adopted the Batson principles and analysis. See State v. Davidson, 166 Wis. 2d 35, 39-40, 479 N.W.2d 181 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Gregory, 2001 WI App 107, 244 Wis. 2d 65, 630 N.W.2d 711. For that reason, it is necessary that we begin our analysis with a summary of peremptory challenges and the Batson analysis. [1, 2] ¶ 23. Originating in English common law, the peremptory challenge is part of the fabric of our jury system and allows parties to strike a potential juror without a reason stated, without inquiry, and without being subject to the court's control. [3] The purpose of the peremptory strike is to eliminate extremes of partiality on both sides and help ensure that jurors will decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented. Swain v. State of Ala., 380 U.S. 202, 219 (1965). As a result, even though the peremptory strike is not constitutionally required, the United States Supreme Court said over a century ago that the peremptory challenge is essential to the fairness of trial by jury. Batson, 476 U.S. at 107 (Marshall, J. concurring) (citing Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 376 (1892)). ¶ 24. A defendant's challenge to the State's use of peremptory strikes to deliberately remove jurors from the venire because of race was initially addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Swain, 380 U.S. 202. In that case the Court held that in order for a defendant to make a prima facie showing that the State had used peremptory strikes in contravention of equal protection principles, the defendant was required to show that a prosecutor had a pattern of using such strikes in a racially discriminatory manner in case after case. Id. at 223. The high standard was set based on a belief that any limitation would radically alter the traditional unfettered nature of peremptory strikes. Id. at 221-22. See also, Batson, 476 U.S. at 98. ¶ 25. In 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the prosecutor's general right to exercise peremptory strikes for any reason related to the prosecutor's view of the case outcome. Batson, 476 U.S. at 89. However, the Supreme Court held that: the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State's case against a black defendant. Id. In Batson, the Court rejected Swain's crippling evidentiary burden for making a prima facie case of equal protection violation, and held that a defendant could establish a prima facie case by relying solely on the facts of his or her case. Id. at 91-92, 96. [3] ¶ 26. In reaching its decision, the Batson Court held that the invidious quality of government action alleged to be racially discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause must ultimately be traced to a racially discriminatory purpose. Id. at 93 (quoting Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 240 (1976)). [4] [4] ¶ 27. As a result, the Batson Court outlined a three-step process for determining if a prosecutor's peremptory strikes violated the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 96-98. [5] ¶ 28. First, in order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory intent, a defendant must show that: (1) he or she is a member of a cognizable group and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory strikes to remove members of the defendant's race from the venire, [5] and (2) the facts and relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to exclude venirepersons on account of their race. Id. at 96. The circuit court must consider all relevant circumstances in determining whether a defendant made the requisite showing. Those circumstances include any pattern of strikes against jurors of the defendant's race and the prosecutor's voir dire questions and statements. The Batson Court expressed confidence that trial judges, experienced in supervising voir dire, will be able to decide if the circumstances concerning the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges creates a prima facie case of discrimination against black jurors. Id. at 97. [6] ¶ 29. Under the second step of Batson, if the circuit court finds that the defendant has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging [the dismissed venireperson]. Id. The prosecutor's explanation must be clear, reasonably specific, and related to the case at hand. Id. at 98 n.20. However, the prosecutor's explanation need not rise to the level of justifying exercise of a strike for cause. Id. at 97-98. [7] ¶ 30. At the second Batson step, a neutral explanation means an explanation based on something other than the race of the juror. Id. at 98. Facial validity of the prosecutor's explanation is the issue. Unless discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral. Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360. Unless the prosecutor exercised a peremptory strike with the intent of causing disparate impact, that impact itself does not violate the principle of race neutrality. Id. at 362. [8] ¶ 31. A prosecutor's reasons for his or her peremptory challenge need not rise to the level of a for cause challenge. According to Purkett, the explanation proffered at the second step need not be persuasive, or even plausible. Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768 (1995). Purkett clarified Batson's requirement for a clear and reasonably specific explanation of legitimate reasons, related to the particular case, for exercising a challenged peremptory strike. The Purkett court said: This warning was meant to refute the notion that a prosecutor could satisfy his burden of production by merely denying that he had a discriminatory motive or by merely affirming his good faith. What it means by a `legitimate reason' is not a reason that makes sense, but a reason that does not deny equal protection. Id. at 769. Moreover, as noted previously, the Court in Purkett said that even a silly or superstitious reason, if facially nondiscriminatory, satisfies the second step of Batson. Id. at 768. [9, 10] ¶ 32. Finally, the third step of Batson requires that when the prosecutor offers a race-neutral explanation, the circuit court has the duty to weigh the credibility of the testimony and determine whether purposeful discrimination has been established. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98. As part of this third step, a defendant may show that the reasons proffered by the State are pretexts for racial discrimination. State v. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158, 176 n.11, 453 N.W.2d 127 (1990). The defendant then has the ultimate burden of persuading the court that the prosecutor purposefully discriminated or that the prosecutor's explanations were a pretext for intentional discrimination. Batson, 476 U.S. at 94 n.18, 98. Therefore, it is at this step that the issue of persuasiveness and plausibility of the prosecutor's reasons for the strike become relevant, and implausible or fantastic justifications may [] be found to be pretexts for purposeful discrimination. Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768. ¶ 33. In addition to accepting silly, superstitious justifications for striking a juror, intuitive strikes have been upheld as valid strikes. United States v. Terrazas-Carrasco, 861 F.2d 93, 94-95 (5th Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Williams, 934 F.2d 847, 850 (7th Cir. 1991) (holding that adequate explanations for exercising a peremptory strike may include a prosecutor's intuitive assumptions that are not fairly quantifiable.). [11] ¶ 34. Applying Batson and its progeny, the rule today is that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated simply because there is a racially discriminatory or a disparate impact. Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. As noted previously, the Court in Hernandez said: Discriminatory purpose [] implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker [] selected [] a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group. Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 360 (internal citations and quotations omitted). ¶ 35. Despite the protections outlined in the three-part test of Batson, Lamon contends that discrimination in jury selections remains widespread. (Pet'r Br. at 7). We recognized 13 years ago that racial discrimination in the jury selection process harms three distinct groups. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158 at 171. First, defendants are harmed when racial discrimination infects the jury selection process. Id. Second, the rights of the excluded jurors are violated when they are denied the opportunity to serve as jurors on account of race. Id. (citing Batson at 86-87). Third, society is harmed because such discriminatory procedures undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. Id. That being said, we believe that the three-part Batson test acknowledges those potential dangers, and guards against the deprivation of equal protection. Batson, 476 U.S. at 86.