Opinion ID: 1629429
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Eric Hughes

Text: As found by the court of appeal, the prosecutor challenged Mr. Hughes based on a medical condition. Jacobs, 2007-887 p. 14-16, 13 So.3d at 689-690. As explained in the appellate opinion, the prosecutor learned of this medical condition either from the trial judge himself, or the judge's staff, as Mr. Hughes had discussed what was apparently a muscular problem with the bailiff and the judge's secretary. After the prosecutor discussed Mr. Hughes' desire to be excused from jury duty based on this muscular problem with the judge and defense counsel, and after defense counsel rejected the prosecutor's request for a joint challenge for cause, the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge to backstrike Mr. Hughes from the jury. The court of appeal found the record devoid of any evidence from Mr. Hughes about his condition and was, thus, unclear how the trial judge was able to assess the plausibility of the prosecutor's proffered race-neutral explanation for the third step of a Batson analysis. Consequently, the appellate court held the trial court erred in determining that the prosecutor's explanations for striking Mr. Hughes were convincingly race-neutral. Jacobs, 2007-887 pp. 16, 18, 13 So.3d at 689, 691. To the contrary, we find the court of appeal missed an important point in its analysis. The trial judge could have no qualms about assessing the plausibility of the prosecutor's explanation because the trial judge and members of his staff were the ones who knew of the prospective juror's condition in the first place. While the record is devoid of any evidence from Mr. Hughes directly, there is no serious or creditable argument to be made that Mr. Hughes did not approach the judge's staff with a request to be excused from jury service on the basis of his medical condition. In other words, the defense has never claimed that the trial judge, prosecutor, and court staff were involved in some sort of conspiracy to manufacture a medical condition for Mr. Hughes that would serve as a race-neutral reason for striking him from the jury. The prosecutor did not know anything about Mr. Hughes' medical condition until the issue was raised by court staff and then explained by the trial judge himself. The condition was plausible because the trial judge knew about the prospective juror's request before the prosecutor did. The fact that the prosecutor also claimed as a reason for exercising the peremptory challenge his belief that people kept on juries when they did not wish to serve would be more likely to punish the state, this prejudice, if it is a prejudice, is a race-neutral one. In connection with this peremptory challenge, the appellate court found suspicious the prosecutor's failure to ask questions of any voir dire panel whether any of its members had a medical condition which would preclude jury service. We find the fact that the prosecutor did not ask any panel, but only reacted when the issue was raised by others, supports the racial neutrality of the explanation rather than serves as evidence of its opposite. As further support for its finding, the court of appeal found the prosecutor engaged in disparate treatment of a white prospective juror who also had a medical condition. As evidence of this finding the appellate court points out that prospective juror Ms. Thibodeaux interrupted the trial judge, prosecutor and defense counsel at a bench conference to state that she was a diabetic, was dizzy, and could not participate in voir dire much longer. The court of appeal found disparate treatment between white and black prospective jurors because the prosecutor did not inquire about Ms. Thibodeaux's medical condition and ultimately accepted her to serve on the jury. However, for disparity of treatment to be present, the medical conditions must be truly similar. Not all medical conditions are alike in how the condition may effect a person's ability to participate in jury service. As any experienced litigator or trial judge would know, a prospective juror who indicates a diabetic condition may be maintained for jury service simply by making available sufficient types of food and reasonable breaks to ensure that appropriate food is consumed. This condition is unlike someone with a muscular problem in their back or neck which would prevent them from sitting or paying attention during jury service. Apparently, the trial judge, prosecutor and defense counsel in this case all recognized that Ms. Thibodeaux did not present a similar medical condition as Mr. Hughes, as neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel asked Ms. Thibodeaux whether her diabetes would interfere with her ability to serve on the jury. Jacobs, 2007-887 p. 17, 13 So.3d at 691. Moreover, Ms. Thibodeaux did not ask to be released from the jury, unlike Mr. Hughes. The court of appeal's evidence of disparate treatment fails because the medical conditions at issue are not truly similar. Upon close analysis, we find each of the reasons given by the court of appeal for its conclusions that the prosecutor's proffered explanation for striking Mr. Hughes was implausible, and that the trial judge failed in his duty to assess the implausibility of the prosecutor's stated reasons, are ultimately unsupported. [2] Consequently, we find there was no error in the trial court's acceptance of the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for raising a peremptory challenge to Mr. Hughes.