Opinion ID: 800764
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Essie Taylor

Text: It was also unreasonable for the state court to credit the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for striking Essie Taylor. The ASA said: As to Essie Taylor, there was very limited questioning as to [her] in the record. There was no questioning at all about the husband's self-employed status. I did not know where he worked or in what capacity or what profession he was even in. Even though there was an indication on the [juror] card that he was self-employed. It is true that Taylor did not provide complete information about her husband's employment and was not asked about his employment during voir dire. The Illinois Supreme Court found this to be a race-neutral reason for striking her. Harris II, 207 Ill.Dec. 400, 647 N.E.2d at 901. But the ASA also claimed that the area Taylor lived in was relatively close to the area where this incident had occurred. As it turned out, however, Taylor actually lived 3½ miles away. At best, the ASA was simply mistaken in his belief about the proximity of Taylor's residence to the crime. Initially, the trial court thought that striking Taylor because she lived reasonably within the area of the city where the defendant lived was a race-neutral reason. (The Illinois Supreme Court noted that the trial court thought Taylor lived within one mile of Harris. Harris I, 135 Ill.Dec. 861, 544 N.E.2d at 385.) The trial court's finding was not supported by the record and was erroneous, and accordingly was rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court. Id. And so the case was remanded. Id. On remand, the trial court found that Taylor lived relatively close to the area where the incident occurred, concluding that 3½ miles could be described as relatively close, and further found that this was a race-neutral reason for excluding her. These explanations, however, become quite suspicious when viewed in the context of the ASA's additional justification for striking Taylor. Similar to Woodard, he claimed: And it was because of a lack of information and lack of knowledge that I did not feel I had a good handle on Essie Taylor. I did not find her to be the kind of a juror that I was going to exercise automatically ... a peremptory challenge [against], but it was because of other jurors that I wanted on my jury that I believe Essie Taylor was excused[.] However, the ASA could not recall which prospective jurors were in the same block of jurors that was considered by the parties at the time Taylor was stricken. Instead, he gave an explanation of the general qualities that he looked for in jurors: ... I am basically looking for people that have strong roots to the community, that have substantial investment in living in the city[.] ... I look to the fact if they are homeowners, that they have lived in a certain community or certain residence for a number of years. If they are renters, if they have lived in that location for a number of years. The types of jobs they have, how often they have changed jobs, how long they have had the most recent job, if they have advanced within the company that they stayed at for a number of years, or if they have moved laterally or down. If they have changed professions from a more academically oriented profession to a less academically oriented profession or vice versa. If they have families, if their families have roots in the community. On the second remand, the trial court found that Taylor was excused for a race-neutral reason, citing the lack of information and knowledge about her and because there were other persons the ASA wanted on the jury. The Illinois Supreme Court noted that the trial judge found that the latter was a race-neutral reason and credited it as a reason for challenging Taylor. The state supreme court did not believe that this reason was clearly pretextual and, because it sustained the challenge to Taylor on the other grounds, the court did not consider it further. Harris II, 207 Ill.Dec. 400, 647 N.E.2d at 901-02. The trial court concluded that [the ASA] was truthful when he said that there were `other jurors that he wanted on [his] jury' because ... Najdowski, Abbott, and [Joseph] Tomsyck became jurors in this case. The court added that it appeared the ASA was attempting to gain an educated, older, conservative, more stable juror. But the court erred in comparing Taylor to Najdowski, Abbott, and Tomsyck. They were selected as the first panel and sworn in as jurors at the end of the first day of trial. Taylor, as the trial court noted, was among the first 8 venirepersons questioned the morning of April 24, 1984, the second day of trial. Thus, Najdowski, Abbott, and Tomsyck already had been chosen and sworn as jurors before Taylor was even questioned. The exercise of a peremptory strike against Taylor would have no effect on whether they would be on the jury; they already were. It would have been appropriate to compare Taylor to the jurors who were under consideration at the same time as she: Woodard, Tony Galovic, Claudia Conway, Soo Gyang, Meldena Ley, Harold Deitche, Eva Morales, Christine Riley, Lucille Johnson, Richard Gray, and Myland Craig. Some of them, such as Gray, Conway, Gyang, and Ley, appear to have been what the ASA was looking for in a jurorolder, educated, or stable. But Taylor also met the description of what the ASA said he was looking for people having strong roots to the community and a substantial investment in living in the city. Taylor was a 35-year-old nurse, married, and the mother of 2 children, ages 12 and 15. She had attended high school in Chicago and had lived there at least 17 years. She had been employed at Mount Sinai Hospital for four years. Before that, she was a stay-at-home mom who cared for her young children. And she had worked at Mount Sinai before staying home. The ASA's supposed concerns about Taylor in the face of her strong ties to the community, stable family, and stable employment are unconvincing and give rise to an inference of pretext for purposeful discrimination. That inference has not been rebutted. Thus, it was unreasonable for the state court to credit the proffered reasons for striking Taylor.