Opinion ID: 2974065
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proffered Reason Relating to the Case

Text: Hibbler’s second argument is based on language from Batson, stating that the party making the contested peremptory challenge “must articulate a neutral explanation related to the particular case to be tried.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 (emphasis added). Hibbler contends that this creates a 10 requirement that the party relate the proffered reason to the facts or circumstances of the particular case; specifically, he argues that the government had to show how Harris’s youth and inexperience would impair her “ability to impartially weigh the evidence and render a verdict in this case.” The Supreme Court expressly rejected this very argument in Purkett, stating that this language in Batson was meant only 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.” 514 U.S. at 769. This argument is meritless.