Opinion ID: 1736768
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Batson-J.E.B. violation

Text: Defendant, a Caucasian-American male, [5] argues that the state impermissibly exercised its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner to strike African-American jurors solely on the basis of race and female jurors solely on the basis of gender in violation of the principles set forth in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994), respectively. In support of this position, defendant cites only bare statistics. [6] As a remedy, defendant initially requested that we remand for an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecutor would be required to articulate neutral reasons. Citing the trial judge's subsequent retirement [7] and this court's recent decision in State v. Myers, 99-1803 (La.4/11/00), 761 So.2d 498, defendant now requests that we remand for a new trial. The state counters that the trial court did not err in failing to require it to articulate neutral reasons given that discrimination cannot be inferred from the facts of this case. Bolstering its position, the state relies on the ultimate gender-mixed composition of the juryfive Caucasian-American females, six Caucasian-American males and one African-American male. The state also relies on the fact that when defendant's objection was made the state had used only eight of its twelve allotted peremptory challenges; this fact, the state urges, has both factual and legal significance. The factual significance is that had the state been purposefully discriminating against any suspect or cognizable group [race or gender], it certainly had the opportunity to remove some of the jurors that actually sat on the jury. The legal significance is that the nature of this casea capital casemandated the verdict be unanimous. In further support of its position, the state quotes the Batson court's comment regarding its confidence in the trial judge's experience in supervising voir dire and in deciding when the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges creates a prima facie case of discrimination. Thus, the state submits that the trial court's ruling that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of race or gender discrimination was not clearly erroneous and should be affirmed.