Opinion ID: 1073
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Peremptory ChallengesRound Two

Text: The district court then seated eight new potential jurors, including one African-American. The defense then exercised two of its five remaining peremptory challenges. The government followed by exercising one of its three remaining peremptory challenges, striking Juror No. 37, the newly called African-American. The defense again objected, stating: This is the second African-American that's being challenged. Our client is entitled to a fair jury. If she's off, there will be one African-American on the jury, and I'm pressing that. The government, when asked by the district court why he was striking the prospective juror, responded: [S]he's a member of the clergy. It has nothing to do with race.... Whether she was black, white, Hispanic, Asian, male or female, I'd be challenging her because I think members of the clergy tend to be more sympathetic towards people and less likely to judge them, and I note for the record the first two that I challenged last time happened to be white males. The district court accepted this explanation, stating: I do know that, typically speaking, prosecutors challenge clergy. I mean, that's the way they do it, so I'm not going to call this a black challenge. After then determining that there was a maximum of two African-Americans in the remaining jury pool, [5] the district court, referring to one of those prospective jurors, asked the government: She is African-American, and I'm not striking three, so will you withdraw [your peremptory challenge]? The government agreed to withdraw its peremptory challenge against Juror No. 37.